Child support- what do you think?
Replies
-
I saw a lot of posts about being responsible for arrears for the last 3 years. I am not going to read all these posts to find out if this has been addressed but, the presumed father, would not be held accountable for any support prior to filing for child support. Child support payments will only start gaining arrears once it's been filed.
Also, the system is different in every state. There is a base of how much it costs to raise a child but they also take in to account that if the 2 parents were in fact still together how much the child would benefit from financially.
Of course this single parent should file for support. The first and main priority here is the best interest of the child. Any additional money coming in would be of great assistance to provide this child with a happier and healthier life.
My opinion...
Given the fact that it has been put off for the last 3 years is honestly, quite saddening. Selfish in the sense that this person would let her pride come in the way of doing what is right for her child.0 -
But that is the risk he took when he allowed the DNA to leave his body. Without being crude, he put that DNA in her body and essentially gave her the right to do with it whatever she chooses to. He was well-aware of that risk, and he still failed to prevent pregnancy.
Sorry, but there's no way you're going to convince me that he should be responsible for her choosing to be a single mother to a baby she can't afford. And yes, it sucks and is horribly sad for the child. Hopefully she meets a good man who wants to be a father and is happy to step in where someone else stepped out. In the meantime, yeah, legally she can go after him for money, right or wrong. And as a mother who would do anything to make sure my child has her basic needs met, yeah, she probably should go for either child support or welfare, both of which piss me off in this situation. This lady wasn't financially set when she decided to have the child and then fell on hard times. She couldn't afford to have a baby and she did it anyway. So now either this guy has to pay for her choice, or we the tax payers have to pay for her choice. It's not fair to anyone, least of all her child.
It is my understanding from the OP that they were in a long term relationship, so unless no kids was discussed, she may have been expecting him to be happy for her and for them to be a family. I don't know you, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do you have children? When I was young, and found out I was pregant with my first child, I was far enough along when I found out that they did my sonogram the same day of my appointment. Hearing that little heartbeat on the monitor made it impossible for me to think about anything other than the little life growing inside of me. So for me, with the information given in the OP, I say he is responsible. He did the deed, and without knowing what conversations they had about children, saying I don't want one after you have already put it in there does not let you off the hook. So respectfully, I agree to disagree :-)
I am a parent and I spent years of battling infertility to become a mother. I get what you're saying, and when I think of it as a mother, without putting my emotion aside, yeah, my first instinct is that this guy should pay. But I'm trying my very best to think of the man and his position. It's tough b/c I don't think that all responsibility should be removed from him. But I don't think it's fair that women get to make all of the choices after the deed is done. And since I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose being between her and her doctor ONLY, without input from the man, I'm left with believing that the man should have some choice in whether or not he is a parent.
I posted my own story on the other page. The guy said he wanted the baby and would take care of it. And then, I got pregnant, and all of a sudden he didn't want it.
There is no documentation of either discussion on record. It was between us. IF the laws absolved dad of responsibility simply because he claimed that he didn't want the child, and he didn't have the right to choose for mom to terminate, how is a judge to determine who is lying about what they said they wanted? Why should the kid have to suffer because someone lied?0 -
Ya, definitely file for support the guy was a douche for not mentioning his family. He should help with the kid, the least he can do.0
-
But that is the risk he took when he allowed the DNA to leave his body. Without being crude, he put that DNA in her body and essentially gave her the right to do with it whatever she chooses to. He was well-aware of that risk, and he still failed to prevent pregnancy.
Sorry, but there's no way you're going to convince me that he should be responsible for her choosing to be a single mother to a baby she can't afford. And yes, it sucks and is horribly sad for the child. Hopefully she meets a good man who wants to be a father and is happy to step in where someone else stepped out. In the meantime, yeah, legally she can go after him for money, right or wrong. And as a mother who would do anything to make sure my child has her basic needs met, yeah, she probably should go for either child support or welfare, both of which piss me off in this situation. This lady wasn't financially set when she decided to have the child and then fell on hard times. She couldn't afford to have a baby and she did it anyway. So now either this guy has to pay for her choice, or we the tax payers have to pay for her choice. It's not fair to anyone, least of all her child.
It is my understanding from the OP that they were in a long term relationship, so unless no kids was discussed, she may have been expecting him to be happy for her and for them to be a family. I don't know you, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do you have children? When I was young, and found out I was pregant with my first child, I was far enough along when I found out that they did my sonogram the same day of my appointment. Hearing that little heartbeat on the monitor made it impossible for me to think about anything other than the little life growing inside of me. So for me, with the information given in the OP, I say he is responsible. He did the deed, and without knowing what conversations they had about children, saying I don't want one after you have already put it in there does not let you off the hook. So respectfully, I agree to disagree :-)
I am a parent and I spent years of battling infertility to become a mother. I get what you're saying, and when I think of it as a mother, without putting my emotion aside, yeah, my first instinct is that this guy should pay. But I'm trying my very best to think of the man and his position. It's tough b/c I don't think that all responsibility should be removed from him. But I don't think it's fair that women get to make all of the choices after the deed is done. And since I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose being between her and her doctor ONLY, without input from the man, I'm left with believing that the man should have some choice in whether or not he is a parent.
I can respect that stance. I can agree that once impregnanted men have very few options, in fact none, they are at the mercy of the mother. I can't help but feel if they make the decision to have unprotected or barely protected sex with someone then they are knowingly giving them the power. Judging from the men posting on this thread, they are all aware once the woman is pregnant they are at her mercy, it seems like a concious decision to become a parent at that point. Thanks for the response! Congratulations BTW on successfully battling infertility!
But, when a woman becomes pregnant she is also "at the mercy". She must do something. She can't just walk away. People seem to forget that.0 -
So, the only thing that matters is your own, selfish, feelings?
A child is not a choice. It's a human being. If you want to harm yourself, go for it. You don't, or should I say, shouldn't have the right to harm the child. Where is his/her choice?
It's nonexistent until they're an actual baby, capable of living outside of the womb.
These arguments are both a matter of opinions, and no matter how much each side weighs in, nothing is going to deter the other from their opinion, so let's put down the swords here and just agree to disagree, shall we?
I pretty much knew this when I started. There's just always that slim chance that someone might come over to the other side. To save a child, I'll always try it.
Edited for spelling.
Have you thought about adoption? That's a great way to save a child!
Personally? No. I never had a doubt who would be raising my children. And, providing for them.
For others, it's an option. I've never had a problem with adoption being an option.
I believe she meant you adopting a child in order to save it.0 -
But that is the risk he took when he allowed the DNA to leave his body. Without being crude, he put that DNA in her body and essentially gave her the right to do with it whatever she chooses to. He was well-aware of that risk, and he still failed to prevent pregnancy.
Sorry, but there's no way you're going to convince me that he should be responsible for her choosing to be a single mother to a baby she can't afford. And yes, it sucks and is horribly sad for the child. Hopefully she meets a good man who wants to be a father and is happy to step in where someone else stepped out. In the meantime, yeah, legally she can go after him for money, right or wrong. And as a mother who would do anything to make sure my child has her basic needs met, yeah, she probably should go for either child support or welfare, both of which piss me off in this situation. This lady wasn't financially set when she decided to have the child and then fell on hard times. She couldn't afford to have a baby and she did it anyway. So now either this guy has to pay for her choice, or we the tax payers have to pay for her choice. It's not fair to anyone, least of all her child.
It is my understanding from the OP that they were in a long term relationship, so unless no kids was discussed, she may have been expecting him to be happy for her and for them to be a family. I don't know you, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do you have children? When I was young, and found out I was pregant with my first child, I was far enough along when I found out that they did my sonogram the same day of my appointment. Hearing that little heartbeat on the monitor made it impossible for me to think about anything other than the little life growing inside of me. So for me, with the information given in the OP, I say he is responsible. He did the deed, and without knowing what conversations they had about children, saying I don't want one after you have already put it in there does not let you off the hook. So respectfully, I agree to disagree :-)
I am a parent and I spent years of battling infertility to become a mother. I get what you're saying, and when I think of it as a mother, without putting my emotion aside, yeah, my first instinct is that this guy should pay. But I'm trying my very best to think of the man and his position. It's tough b/c I don't think that all responsibility should be removed from him. But I don't think it's fair that women get to make all of the choices after the deed is done. And since I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose being between her and her doctor ONLY, without input from the man, I'm left with believing that the man should have some choice in whether or not he is a parent.
I posted my own story on the other page. The guy said he wanted the baby and would take care of it. And then, I got pregnant, and all of a sudden he didn't want it.
There is no documentation of either discussion on record. It was between us. How is a judge to determine who is lying about what they said they wanted? Why should the kid have to suffer because someone lied?
A judge does not care "who said what". A judge in a child support hearing is there for the child and NOT the parents. The judge only cares about "who" is the father and the financial responsibilities. Even if he lied about what he wanted he's still the child's father and is responsible for financial support.0 -
Woah, this argument could get huge! I'm 28 weeks.
Not trying to get into a debate, but this got me to think.
15-20 years ago a baby born at 22 weeks would not have survived. Now with the advancement of medical technology that child has a fighting chance to survive outside of the womb.
No debate just got me thinking as medical technology gets more advanced that bar of survival gets pushed further and further back. It will make the ethics here much more grey in the future.
This is totally off topic by the way from the OP.
Pretty sure eventually babies will be able to be born in a lab from day one.0 -
But that is the risk he took when he allowed the DNA to leave his body. Without being crude, he put that DNA in her body and essentially gave her the right to do with it whatever she chooses to. He was well-aware of that risk, and he still failed to prevent pregnancy.
Sorry, but there's no way you're going to convince me that he should be responsible for her choosing to be a single mother to a baby she can't afford. And yes, it sucks and is horribly sad for the child. Hopefully she meets a good man who wants to be a father and is happy to step in where someone else stepped out. In the meantime, yeah, legally she can go after him for money, right or wrong. And as a mother who would do anything to make sure my child has her basic needs met, yeah, she probably should go for either child support or welfare, both of which piss me off in this situation. This lady wasn't financially set when she decided to have the child and then fell on hard times. She couldn't afford to have a baby and she did it anyway. So now either this guy has to pay for her choice, or we the tax payers have to pay for her choice. It's not fair to anyone, least of all her child.
It is my understanding from the OP that they were in a long term relationship, so unless no kids was discussed, she may have been expecting him to be happy for her and for them to be a family. I don't know you, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do you have children? When I was young, and found out I was pregant with my first child, I was far enough along when I found out that they did my sonogram the same day of my appointment. Hearing that little heartbeat on the monitor made it impossible for me to think about anything other than the little life growing inside of me. So for me, with the information given in the OP, I say he is responsible. He did the deed, and without knowing what conversations they had about children, saying I don't want one after you have already put it in there does not let you off the hook. So respectfully, I agree to disagree :-)
I am a parent and I spent years of battling infertility to become a mother. I get what you're saying, and when I think of it as a mother, without putting my emotion aside, yeah, my first instinct is that this guy should pay. But I'm trying my very best to think of the man and his position. It's tough b/c I don't think that all responsibility should be removed from him. But I don't think it's fair that women get to make all of the choices after the deed is done. And since I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose being between her and her doctor ONLY, without input from the man, I'm left with believing that the man should have some choice in whether or not he is a parent.
I posted my own story on the other page. The guy said he wanted the baby and would take care of it. And then, I got pregnant, and all of a sudden he didn't want it.
There is no documentation of either discussion on record. It was between us. How is a judge to determine who is lying about what they said they wanted? Why should the kid have to suffer because someone lied?
A judge does not care "who said what". A judge in a child support hearing is there for the child and NOT the parents. The judge only cares about "who" is the father and the financial responsibilities. Even if he lied about what he wanted he's still the child's father and is responsible for financial support.
I know that. The discussion was that many believe that since he doesn't have the right to choose for mom to get an abortion, then he should be absolved of his responsibility to pay support for the child. The scenario I presented was IF the laws were set up that way, then how would I protect my child if he lied.0 -
But that is the risk he took when he allowed the DNA to leave his body. Without being crude, he put that DNA in her body and essentially gave her the right to do with it whatever she chooses to. He was well-aware of that risk, and he still failed to prevent pregnancy.
Sorry, but there's no way you're going to convince me that he should be responsible for her choosing to be a single mother to a baby she can't afford. And yes, it sucks and is horribly sad for the child. Hopefully she meets a good man who wants to be a father and is happy to step in where someone else stepped out. In the meantime, yeah, legally she can go after him for money, right or wrong. And as a mother who would do anything to make sure my child has her basic needs met, yeah, she probably should go for either child support or welfare, both of which piss me off in this situation. This lady wasn't financially set when she decided to have the child and then fell on hard times. She couldn't afford to have a baby and she did it anyway. So now either this guy has to pay for her choice, or we the tax payers have to pay for her choice. It's not fair to anyone, least of all her child.
It is my understanding from the OP that they were in a long term relationship, so unless no kids was discussed, she may have been expecting him to be happy for her and for them to be a family. I don't know you, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do you have children? When I was young, and found out I was pregant with my first child, I was far enough along when I found out that they did my sonogram the same day of my appointment. Hearing that little heartbeat on the monitor made it impossible for me to think about anything other than the little life growing inside of me. So for me, with the information given in the OP, I say he is responsible. He did the deed, and without knowing what conversations they had about children, saying I don't want one after you have already put it in there does not let you off the hook. So respectfully, I agree to disagree :-)
I am a parent and I spent years of battling infertility to become a mother. I get what you're saying, and when I think of it as a mother, without putting my emotion aside, yeah, my first instinct is that this guy should pay. But I'm trying my very best to think of the man and his position. It's tough b/c I don't think that all responsibility should be removed from him. But I don't think it's fair that women get to make all of the choices after the deed is done. And since I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose being between her and her doctor ONLY, without input from the man, I'm left with believing that the man should have some choice in whether or not he is a parent.
I can respect that stance. I can agree that once impregnanted men have very few options, in fact none, they are at the mercy of the mother. I can't help but feel if they make the decision to have unprotected or barely protected sex with someone then they are knowingly giving them the power. Judging from the men posting on this thread, they are all aware once the woman is pregnant they are at her mercy, it seems like a concious decision to become a parent at that point. Thanks for the response! Congratulations BTW on successfully battling infertility!
But, when a woman becomes pregnant she is also "at the mercy". She must do something. She can't just walk away. People seem to forget that.
Not at all..that is what can make it so hard. I respect a woman's right to make a choice about her body. For me, there was never any question once I heard that hearbeat. I can only imagine the hot mess I would be today everytime I saw a 13 year old brunette girl. I don't believe in abortion for myself personally, but it is not my place to tell others or judge them for the choices they make. Choosing to be a parent when it isn't planned for can be a hard and scary decision, but absolving the male counterpart of any and all responsibility seems unfair to the woman that has a moral issue with having an abortion. To each their own, it is not my place to make decisions for others, just for myself. :-)0 -
Personal bias admittance: I am a single dad. However, I am not paying child support. I am raising my children. They visit their mom, and I have never sought child support from her.
The whole child support system is skewed. I know how much money I would have to pay if I did not have custody of my kids, and the amount that actually cost is a small fraction of that. What child support then equates to is ex wife/ex gf/ex mistress/ex whatever support. Because it is way above and beyond what is actually needed to help raise kids, assuming the dad has a decent job.
I am of the firm belief that if child support were more in line with 1/2 the actual cost of raising kids (two parents, each should pay 1/2 the cost), you would see more people willingly stepping up to take care of it. There is no reason that child support should be based on salary, because the cost of raising the child is not changed by how much dad earns. No guy wants to be saddled paying a ton of money, of which only a fraction is actually needed to raise the kids. The end result is they are supporting a child AND the childs mother. It is immoral to expect a man to financially support a woman for 18+ years because he had a child with her. The child, yes. The woman, no.
There should be a baseline cost for raising kids, with locality adjustments. When child support is to be paid, the paying parent pays 1/2 that amount. It doesn't matter how much you make, you are equally responsible to support the child. And it should be adjusted to account for visitation. If the dad has the kids 30% of the time, his payment should be reduced to reflect that he is feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child 30% of the time.
Well said!!!! Couldn't agree with you more.
So if one parent makes 120,000 per year and another parent makes 45,000 per year then they should each pay the same amount? Just trying to get some clarification.
I am re-married and receive child support from my ex for our child. I make more money than him and so my contribution to child support is MORE that what he is responsible for. The child lives with me and is only at his father's 4 days a month (that's 48 days per year). So how exactly is his money going to me and not to my child?
Yes, it should be. You each contributed equally to creating a child. Income is irrelevant to that. You should each mbe equally responsible for the financial support of said child. If the cost of meeting your childs needs (not wants, not extras, NEEDS) multiplied by 1/2 is more than what he is paying, he should pay more. If it is more, then he should not be paying as much unless he chooses to do so.
And the argument, "I raise the kids, so I should get more" is invalid. If you look at raising your kids as something that you HAVE to do and as such should be financially compensated, rather than a privilage that you GET to do, you have further issues that I am not going to delve into.0 -
So, the only thing that matters is your own, selfish, feelings?
A child is not a choice. It's a human being. If you want to harm yourself, go for it. You don't, or should I say, shouldn't have the right to harm the child. Where is his/her choice?
It's nonexistent until they're an actual baby, capable of living outside of the womb.
These arguments are both a matter of opinions, and no matter how much each side weighs in, nothing is going to deter the other from their opinion, so let's put down the swords here and just agree to disagree, shall we?
I pretty much knew this when I started. There's just always that slim chance that someone might come over to the other side. To save a child, I'll always try it.
Edited for spelling.
Have you thought about adoption? That's a great way to save a child!
Personally? No. I never had a doubt who would be raising my children. And, providing for them.
For others, it's an option. I've never had a problem with adoption being an option.
I believe she meant you adopting a child in order to save it.
Oh! I would in a heartbeat if I thought the powers that be would allow that! There are a couple of reasons that it wouldn't be allowed. Health being the biggest.0 -
I posted my own story on the other page. The guy said he wanted the baby and would take care of it. And then, I got pregnant, and all of a sudden he didn't want it.
There is no documentation of either discussion on record. It was between us. How is a judge to determine who is lying about what they said they wanted? Why should the kid have to suffer because someone lied?
a judge doesn't even listen to that crap... it doesn't matter one iota... most states have online calculators.. you put in what you make, what dad makes, what insurance costs, and what childcare so you can work costs.... and BAM... a number. A judge just uses that as the basis... he may change it is there is some crazy thing going on (Dad has terminal cancer and isn't working... he may reduce it... Dad is an *kitten* in court saying things like "I never wanted no kids anyway", he may increase it)0 -
I posted my own story on the other page. The guy said he wanted the baby and would take care of it. And then, I got pregnant, and all of a sudden he didn't want it.
There is no documentation of either discussion on record. It was between us. How is a judge to determine who is lying about what they said they wanted? Why should the kid have to suffer because someone lied?
a judge doesn't even listen to that crap... it doesn't matter one iota... most states have online calculators.. you put in what you make, what dad makes, what insurance costs, and what childcare so you can work costs.... and BAM... a number. A judge just uses that as the basis... he may change it is there is some crazy thing going on (Dad has terminal cancer and isn't working... he may reduce it... Dad is an *kitten* in court saying things like "I never wanted no kids anyway", he may increase it)
Maybe I should edit that post. I know the laws.
It was a WHAT-IF question about if the laws absolved dad from responsibility for support since he does not have the right to choose what the mom can do with her body.0 -
If I was in this situation then I would not want the money and would rather struggle. Might sound silly but I'd feel that if I made the so called father take responsibility then I couldn't complain if he just decided to walk back into my childs life someday. I would rather have nothing to do with him and live my life poor but happy than deal with the disruption he could cause.
this is how I felt.0 -
I think people should be using birth control more.0
-
I'm a child of divorce, and, honestly, I spend too much time in my own head. I've been mulling that question over since I was seven.
Child support is supposed to include:
-food
-clothes
-school supplies
-rent
-miscellaneous/incidentals
In my opinion, any money left over after those are all taken care of should go into a trust or college fund for the kid. That money might not be 100% necessary now, but once the kid is eighteen, no more child support - the father has no legal obligation to help his child inany way. Use any leftover money to keep supporting that kid through college, maybe grad school if it stretches that far; that is, as far as I can see, the right thing to do.0 -
But that is the risk he took when he allowed the DNA to leave his body. Without being crude, he put that DNA in her body and essentially gave her the right to do with it whatever she chooses to. He was well-aware of that risk, and he still failed to prevent pregnancy.
Sorry, but there's no way you're going to convince me that he should be responsible for her choosing to be a single mother to a baby she can't afford. And yes, it sucks and is horribly sad for the child. Hopefully she meets a good man who wants to be a father and is happy to step in where someone else stepped out. In the meantime, yeah, legally she can go after him for money, right or wrong. And as a mother who would do anything to make sure my child has her basic needs met, yeah, she probably should go for either child support or welfare, both of which piss me off in this situation. This lady wasn't financially set when she decided to have the child and then fell on hard times. She couldn't afford to have a baby and she did it anyway. So now either this guy has to pay for her choice, or we the tax payers have to pay for her choice. It's not fair to anyone, least of all her child.
It is my understanding from the OP that they were in a long term relationship, so unless no kids was discussed, she may have been expecting him to be happy for her and for them to be a family. I don't know you, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do you have children? When I was young, and found out I was pregant with my first child, I was far enough along when I found out that they did my sonogram the same day of my appointment. Hearing that little heartbeat on the monitor made it impossible for me to think about anything other than the little life growing inside of me. So for me, with the information given in the OP, I say he is responsible. He did the deed, and without knowing what conversations they had about children, saying I don't want one after you have already put it in there does not let you off the hook. So respectfully, I agree to disagree :-)
I am a parent and I spent years of battling infertility to become a mother. I get what you're saying, and when I think of it as a mother, without putting my emotion aside, yeah, my first instinct is that this guy should pay. But I'm trying my very best to think of the man and his position. It's tough b/c I don't think that all responsibility should be removed from him. But I don't think it's fair that women get to make all of the choices after the deed is done. And since I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose being between her and her doctor ONLY, without input from the man, I'm left with believing that the man should have some choice in whether or not he is a parent.
I can respect that stance. I can agree that once impregnanted men have very few options, in fact none, they are at the mercy of the mother. I can't help but feel if they make the decision to have unprotected or barely protected sex with someone then they are knowingly giving them the power. Judging from the men posting on this thread, they are all aware once the woman is pregnant they are at her mercy, it seems like a concious decision to become a parent at that point. Thanks for the response! Congratulations BTW on successfully battling infertility!
But, when a woman becomes pregnant she is also "at the mercy". She must do something. She can't just walk away. People seem to forget that.
Not at all..that is what can make it so hard. I respect a woman's right to make a choice about her body. For me, there was never any question once I heard that hearbeat. I can only imagine the hot mess I would be today everytime I saw a 13 year old brunette girl. I don't believe in abortion for myself personally, but it is not my place to tell others or judge them for the choices they make. Choosing to be a parent when it isn't planned for can be a hard and scary decision, but absolving the male counterpart of any and all responsibility seems unfair to the woman that has a moral issue with having an abortion. To each their own, it is not my place to make decisions for others, just for myself. :-)
I didn't read this whole comment thread. I just mean that people are making it sound like only men can be victims and that women can manipulate them with pregnancy. Men can impregnate a women and then just walk away without a care in the world (if they choose and especially if they happen to be a sociopath...and yes woman can be sociopaths as well). A women can't do that (just walk away and do nothing). It's not skewed in one direction. Pregnancy has an impact on both men and women. And it takes a much bigger toll and cost to the woman in most cases (that is just basic science).0 -
Well this thread blew up while I was lifting. I never said the dad shouldn't support the kid. I said that he should pay 1/2 the cost to meet the childs needs. In no way should a man have to raise the living status of a woman. Ever. If he chooses to do so, fine. That is his choice.
To everyone who said he should want to elevate the status of the child (and the mom by proxy), that should be his choice. If parents are together, they are not required to do any more than meet the childs needs. If they choose to do more, that is on them. Them not be together should have no impact on this issue. Neither should be required by law to do any more than meet the kids needs, same as they wouldn't be if they were together. If they aggree to do more, fine. If one wants to do more and the other doesn't, it is should be up to the parent that wants to do more.
Hell, I make more than the dad that is discussed in the OP. Yet I live in an ~1400 sq ft 3 br 2 bath that costs under 100k. My kids wear mostly second hand clothes, and I wear several articles of clothing that I wore in high school. I don't feel the need to have any lavish lifestyle because I make 6 figures. I live about the same way I did when I made 1/2 as much. Should I be required by law to up the living standards of my kids and I just because I make more money and can afford it? Because many of you are suggesting that the dad should be required to pay to up the living standard of the kids and their mom to match his salary. That is the exact same as butting in and requiring me to up my childrens living standards. Even though they are healthy, happy, and their needs are met and then some.
Is that why you are naked? Maybe you should go buy a new shirt.
Nope, it is because this is a fitness website and my avatar reflects my current progress.0 -
Personal bias admittance: I am a single dad. However, I am not paying child support. I am raising my children. They visit their mom, and I have never sought child support from her.
The whole child support system is skewed. I know how much money I would have to pay if I did not have custody of my kids, and the amount that actually cost is a small fraction of that. What child support then equates to is ex wife/ex gf/ex mistress/ex whatever support. Because it is way above and beyond what is actually needed to help raise kids, assuming the dad has a decent job.
I am of the firm belief that if child support were more in line with 1/2 the actual cost of raising kids (two parents, each should pay 1/2 the cost), you would see more people willingly stepping up to take care of it. There is no reason that child support should be based on salary, because the cost of raising the child is not changed by how much dad earns. No guy wants to be saddled paying a ton of money, of which only a fraction is actually needed to raise the kids. The end result is they are supporting a child AND the childs mother. It is immoral to expect a man to financially support a woman for 18+ years because he had a child with her. The child, yes. The woman, no.
There should be a baseline cost for raising kids, with locality adjustments. When child support is to be paid, the paying parent pays 1/2 that amount. It doesn't matter how much you make, you are equally responsible to support the child. And it should be adjusted to account for visitation. If the dad has the kids 30% of the time, his payment should be reduced to reflect that he is feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child 30% of the time.
Well said!!!! Couldn't agree with you more.
So if one parent makes 120,000 per year and another parent makes 45,000 per year then they should each pay the same amount? Just trying to get some clarification.
I am re-married and receive child support from my ex for our child. I make more money than him and so my contribution to child support is MORE that what he is responsible for. The child lives with me and is only at his father's 4 days a month (that's 48 days per year). So how exactly is his money going to me and not to my child?
Yes, it should be. You each contributed equally to creating a child. Income is irrelevant to that. You should each mbe equally responsible for the financial support of said child. If the cost of meeting your childs needs (not wants, not extras, NEEDS) multiplied by 1/2 is more than what he is paying, he should pay more. If it is more, then he should not be paying as much unless he chooses to do so.
And the argument, "I raise the kids, so I should get more" is invalid. If you look at raising your kids as something that you HAVE to do and as such should be financially compensated, rather than a privilage that you GET to do, you have further issues that I am not going to delve into.
Um, actually I said that I pay more AND raise the child. I'm not asking for more. IF I asked for more that would put HIM in financial hardship which could make it next to impossible for him to take his child every other weekend. That would not be fair to my son would it? So not exactly sure where you are getting the info that I said I should get more.
By YOUR argument you are saying that I SHOULD get more because I am responsible for paying MORE than he does. The state calculates how much it takes to raise the child and then parents are given a percentage to be responsible for out of 100%. I am responsible for 58% and he is responsible for 42% of that 100%.
So really you are saying that I should fight for that other 8% and he should have to pay more even though I make more than double what he does. And THAT is what is fair??
OH and I'm not sure where I said that raising my child was something I HAVE to do.0 -
I posted my own story on the other page. The guy said he wanted the baby and would take care of it. And then, I got pregnant, and all of a sudden he didn't want it.
There is no documentation of either discussion on record. It was between us. How is a judge to determine who is lying about what they said they wanted? Why should the kid have to suffer because someone lied?
Okay, but now you're talking about legal obligations. Yes, of course they're legally obligated and I don't think that should change (even though there are a lot of things re: their legal obligation that SHOULD change). I just don't think that it's right for woman to go after the bio-dad just b/c they can. If you have to, then yeah, do what's right for your kids. I just think that all of the other points should be taken into account before that choice is made. I just think the man's position and choice should be respected when possible, but not at the expense of the child. Understand, I'm arguing this side b/c it seemed like it wasn't really being considered. Lots of automatic drag him to court replies. Maybe she could contact him and see if he's willing to contribute until she's able to do it herself. Or maybe she could take him to court and get a grand a month. Again, the choices are hers.0 -
But that is the risk he took when he allowed the DNA to leave his body. Without being crude, he put that DNA in her body and essentially gave her the right to do with it whatever she chooses to. He was well-aware of that risk, and he still failed to prevent pregnancy.
Sorry, but there's no way you're going to convince me that he should be responsible for her choosing to be a single mother to a baby she can't afford. And yes, it sucks and is horribly sad for the child. Hopefully she meets a good man who wants to be a father and is happy to step in where someone else stepped out. In the meantime, yeah, legally she can go after him for money, right or wrong. And as a mother who would do anything to make sure my child has her basic needs met, yeah, she probably should go for either child support or welfare, both of which piss me off in this situation. This lady wasn't financially set when she decided to have the child and then fell on hard times. She couldn't afford to have a baby and she did it anyway. So now either this guy has to pay for her choice, or we the tax payers have to pay for her choice. It's not fair to anyone, least of all her child.
It is my understanding from the OP that they were in a long term relationship, so unless no kids was discussed, she may have been expecting him to be happy for her and for them to be a family. I don't know you, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do you have children? When I was young, and found out I was pregant with my first child, I was far enough along when I found out that they did my sonogram the same day of my appointment. Hearing that little heartbeat on the monitor made it impossible for me to think about anything other than the little life growing inside of me. So for me, with the information given in the OP, I say he is responsible. He did the deed, and without knowing what conversations they had about children, saying I don't want one after you have already put it in there does not let you off the hook. So respectfully, I agree to disagree :-)
I am a parent and I spent years of battling infertility to become a mother. I get what you're saying, and when I think of it as a mother, without putting my emotion aside, yeah, my first instinct is that this guy should pay. But I'm trying my very best to think of the man and his position. It's tough b/c I don't think that all responsibility should be removed from him. But I don't think it's fair that women get to make all of the choices after the deed is done. And since I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose being between her and her doctor ONLY, without input from the man, I'm left with believing that the man should have some choice in whether or not he is a parent.
I can respect that stance. I can agree that once impregnanted men have very few options, in fact none, they are at the mercy of the mother. I can't help but feel if they make the decision to have unprotected or barely protected sex with someone then they are knowingly giving them the power. Judging from the men posting on this thread, they are all aware once the woman is pregnant they are at her mercy, it seems like a concious decision to become a parent at that point. Thanks for the response! Congratulations BTW on successfully battling infertility!
But, when a woman becomes pregnant she is also "at the mercy". She must do something. She can't just walk away. People seem to forget that.
Not at all..that is what can make it so hard. I respect a woman's right to make a choice about her body. For me, there was never any question once I heard that hearbeat. I can only imagine the hot mess I would be today everytime I saw a 13 year old brunette girl. I don't believe in abortion for myself personally, but it is not my place to tell others or judge them for the choices they make. Choosing to be a parent when it isn't planned for can be a hard and scary decision, but absolving the male counterpart of any and all responsibility seems unfair to the woman that has a moral issue with having an abortion. To each their own, it is not my place to make decisions for others, just for myself. :-)
I didn't read this whole comment thread. I just mean that people are making it sound like only men can be victims and that women can manipulate them with pregnancy. Men can impregnate a women and then just walk away without a care in the world (if they choose and especially if they happen to be a sociopath...and yes woman can be sociopaths as well). A women can't do that (just walk away and do nothing). It's not skewed in one direction. Pregnancy has an impact on both men and women. And it takes a much bigger toll and cost to the woman in most cases (that is just basic science).
Agreed!0 -
Is that why you are naked? Maybe you should go buy a new shirt.
Nope, it is because this is a fitness website and my avatar reflects my current progress.
I was trying to be funny, hence the use of the little winky guy.0 -
I think that parents should have to financially support their children. However, the system is heavily skewed towards women and decisions are often made on emotion. And the payments are often ridiculously high.
My daughter's father was not forced to pay for EIGHT YEARS even though I filed. The he got let out of a couple thousand in arrears because it wasn't "an enforcable amount" for the state to collect and he ain't offering.
I couldn't afford to go visit my dying grandmother because I'm putting OUR child through college. He's on vacation in Italy rightnow.
Tell me again how women make out so well on the system.
I am not familiar with what an enforcable amount is, so I wont comment yet.
You CHOOSE to put them through college, some parents who are married choose not to or cannot afford it.
My brother and I paid for our own college because then if we failed, dropped out it was on us to pay for and my mom could not afford to pay for it and thought if we wanted it bad enough we could pay for it.0 -
My fiance has a 4-year-old child with his ex-partner of 9 years. She also has two other, older daughters from a previous marriage who live with their father primarily. She pays child support to him for those kids. She and my fiance share custody and expenses for their child 50/50. She's in an extremely tight spot financially right now. She's sold her car, is getting around by bus, considering filing for bankruptcy, etc. We've had to front her money for things like her half of the daycare and things like that. While in our arrangement it makes sense to split expenses like we have been and not get involved with her financial situation, if she asked me/us for specific things that she needed for their kid that she was in a bind for, of course we'd pay for it, or at least I would encourage my partner to do so. In some ways I would say we have more of a financial obligation, as we do make significantly more money. Even when the two parties are married, one typically does provide more financially for the child than the other. The ability to do so doesn't really change when the couple splits up.
I say all this to say that it's one thing to ask for "support", and it's another thing to justify what and why. I know lots of people will disagree with me, but I think it's a lot better to go to the other parent directly and say, "look, I need help paying for XYZ" rather than taking them for child support, which could mean anything. It's a lot easier if you can present the need to the other person.0 -
Personal bias admittance: I am a single dad. However, I am not paying child support. I am raising my children. They visit their mom, and I have never sought child support from her.
The whole child support system is skewed. I know how much money I would have to pay if I did not have custody of my kids, and the amount that actually cost is a small fraction of that. What child support then equates to is ex wife/ex gf/ex mistress/ex whatever support. Because it is way above and beyond what is actually needed to help raise kids, assuming the dad has a decent job.
I am of the firm belief that if child support were more in line with 1/2 the actual cost of raising kids (two parents, each should pay 1/2 the cost), you would see more people willingly stepping up to take care of it. There is no reason that child support should be based on salary, because the cost of raising the child is not changed by how much dad earns. No guy wants to be saddled paying a ton of money, of which only a fraction is actually needed to raise the kids. The end result is they are supporting a child AND the childs mother. It is immoral to expect a man to financially support a woman for 18+ years because he had a child with her. The child, yes. The woman, no.
There should be a baseline cost for raising kids, with locality adjustments. When child support is to be paid, the paying parent pays 1/2 that amount. It doesn't matter how much you make, you are equally responsible to support the child. And it should be adjusted to account for visitation. If the dad has the kids 30% of the time, his payment should be reduced to reflect that he is feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child 30% of the time.
Well said!!!! Couldn't agree with you more.
So if one parent makes 120,000 per year and another parent makes 45,000 per year then they should each pay the same amount? Just trying to get some clarification.
I am re-married and receive child support from my ex for our child. I make more money than him and so my contribution to child support is MORE that what he is responsible for. The child lives with me and is only at his father's 4 days a month (that's 48 days per year). So how exactly is his money going to me and not to my child?
Yes, it should be. You each contributed equally to creating a child. Income is irrelevant to that. You should each mbe equally responsible for the financial support of said child. If the cost of meeting your childs needs (not wants, not extras, NEEDS) multiplied by 1/2 is more than what he is paying, he should pay more. If it is more, then he should not be paying as much unless he chooses to do so.
And the argument, "I raise the kids, so I should get more" is invalid. If you look at raising your kids as something that you HAVE to do and as such should be financially compensated, rather than a privilage that you GET to do, you have further issues that I am not going to delve into.
Um, actually I said that I pay more AND raise the child. I'm not asking for more. IF I asked for more that would put HIM in financial hardship which could make it next to impossible for him to take his child every other weekend. That would not be fair to my son would it? So not exactly sure where you are getting the info that I said I should get more.
By YOUR argument you are saying that I SHOULD get more because I am responsible for paying MORE than he does. The state calculates how much it takes to raise the child and then parents are given a percentage to be responsible for out of 100%. I am responsible for 58% and he is responsible for 42% of that 100%.
So really you are saying that I should fight for that other 8% and he should have to pay more even though I make more than double what he does. And THAT is what is fair??
No, the state calculates how much they expect each of you would pay given your income, not how much it actually costs to meet the needs of the child. I am saying that, if a court order is involved, it should never be more than 1/2 if the actual cost of meeting the needs.
If the parents agree to anything outside of that, that is their perogative. I make a lot, my ex wife makes nothing. I agreed to give her 3 years to finish a college degree and actually be able to support herself before I would ask for child support. And I may or may not when that three years is up. That is an agreement we made outside of the court.0 -
I posted my own story on the other page. The guy said he wanted the baby and would take care of it. And then, I got pregnant, and all of a sudden he didn't want it.
There is no documentation of either discussion on record. It was between us. How is a judge to determine who is lying about what they said they wanted? Why should the kid have to suffer because someone lied?
Okay, but now you're talking about legal obligations. Yes, of course they're legally obligated and I don't think that should change (even though there are a lot of things re: their legal obligation that SHOULD change). I just don't think that it's right for woman to go after the bio-dad just b/c they can. If you have to, then yeah, do what's right for your kids. I just think that all of the other points should be taken into account before that choice is made. I just think the man's position and choice should be respected when possible, but not at the expense of the child. Understand, I'm arguing this side b/c it seemed like it wasn't really being considered. Lots of automatic drag him to court replies. Maybe she could contact him and see if he's willing to contribute until she's able to do it herself. Or maybe she could take him to court and get a grand a month. Again, the choices are hers.
Well... now you are talking about invidual morality. Again, that's a risk the man takes when he doesn't protect himself. If he doesn't know this woman, if he doesn't know that she will treat him like crap or not, then he shouldn't take the risk in the first place. He's making himself vulnerable to a crazy, stupid woman. But if the laws protected his rights, then it would not protect the rights of the child.
But on the same token, I took a risk when I allowed myself to be impregnated by a liar. What can I say... I was young and dumb. But just because I believed him, doesn't mean that my kids should suffer for my mistake.
And just bringing this back around to the topic, the OP's child should not have to suffer because the bio-dad decided to have an affair and have unprotected sex, regardless of whatever choices bio-mom made in the whole affair. The idea that she didn't abort when he wanted her to, and therefore, he is not responsible, is probably the very social stigma that keeps her from going after the guy for child support.0 -
Personal bias admittance: I am a single dad. However, I am not paying child support. I am raising my children. They visit their mom, and I have never sought child support from her.
The whole child support system is skewed. I know how much money I would have to pay if I did not have custody of my kids, and the amount that actually cost is a small fraction of that. What child support then equates to is ex wife/ex gf/ex mistress/ex whatever support. Because it is way above and beyond what is actually needed to help raise kids, assuming the dad has a decent job.
I am of the firm belief that if child support were more in line with 1/2 the actual cost of raising kids (two parents, each should pay 1/2 the cost), you would see more people willingly stepping up to take care of it. There is no reason that child support should be based on salary, because the cost of raising the child is not changed by how much dad earns. No guy wants to be saddled paying a ton of money, of which only a fraction is actually needed to raise the kids. The end result is they are supporting a child AND the childs mother. It is immoral to expect a man to financially support a woman for 18+ years because he had a child with her. The child, yes. The woman, no.
There should be a baseline cost for raising kids, with locality adjustments. When child support is to be paid, the paying parent pays 1/2 that amount. It doesn't matter how much you make, you are equally responsible to support the child. And it should be adjusted to account for visitation. If the dad has the kids 30% of the time, his payment should be reduced to reflect that he is feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child 30% of the time.
I totally agree with everything you wrote. Also if a man have the children, the woman should pay child support.0 -
I'm a child of divorce, and, honestly, I spend too much time in my own head. I've been mulling that question over since I was seven.
Child support is supposed to include:
-food
-clothes
-school supplies
-rent
-miscellaneous/incidentals
In my opinion, any money left over after those are all taken care of should go into a trust or college fund for the kid. That money might not be 100% necessary now, but once the kid is eighteen, no more child support - the father has no legal obligation to help his child inany way. Use any leftover money to keep supporting that kid through college, maybe grad school if it stretches that far; that is, as far as I can see, the right thing to do.
Utility bills? (Ever see what teens can do to a power bill?)
Health insurance premiums ?
Deductibles and copays?
Car insurance when teen wants to drive?
The list is endless ...
My bias:
Had 2 children. Ex was supposed to pay $200 per month for BOTH. He could live free with his girlfriend. I had to rent and pay for a 3 bedroom apartment. He rarely paid. My new husband raised and supported the children providing them with braces, vacations, and everything they needed.
Some men are scum and don't care about their kids.
Some men are heroes and take care of their own and those left behind by their "fathers".
Moral of the story? We should find out what kind of man he is before having children with him. Would make things much easier all around.0 -
I posted my own story on the other page. The guy said he wanted the baby and would take care of it. And then, I got pregnant, and all of a sudden he didn't want it.
There is no documentation of either discussion on record. It was between us. How is a judge to determine who is lying about what they said they wanted? Why should the kid have to suffer because someone lied?
Okay, but now you're talking about legal obligations. Yes, of course they're legally obligated and I don't think that should change (even though there are a lot of things re: their legal obligation that SHOULD change). I just don't think that it's right for woman to go after the bio-dad just b/c they can. If you have to, then yeah, do what's right for your kids. I just think that all of the other points should be taken into account before that choice is made. I just think the man's position and choice should be respected when possible, but not at the expense of the child. Understand, I'm arguing this side b/c it seemed like it wasn't really being considered. Lots of automatic drag him to court replies. Maybe she could contact him and see if he's willing to contribute until she's able to do it herself. Or maybe she could take him to court and get a grand a month. Again, the choices are hers.
Well... now you are talking about invidual morality. Again, that's a risk the man takes when he doesn't protect himself. If he doesn't know this woman, if he doesn't know that she will treat him like crap or not, then he shouldn't take the risk in the first place. He's making himself vulnerable to a crazy, stupid woman. But if the laws protected his rights, then it would not protect the rights of the child.
But on the same token, I took a risk when I allowed myself to be impregnated by a liar. What can I say... I was young and dumb. But just because I believed him, doesn't mean that my kids should suffer for my mistake.
And just bringing this back around to the topic, the OP's child should not have to suffer because the bio-dad decided to have an affair and have unprotected sex, regardless of whatever choices bio-mom made in the whole affair. The idea that she didn't abort when he wanted her to, and therefore, he is not responsible, is probably the very social stigma that keeps her from going after the guy for child support.
Agreed, as adults we know there are consequences for our actions. He didn't give her a disease he gave her a life. If they did not want to produce a child precautions should have been taken on both sides. Well said UsedToBeHusky0 -
But that's where we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think it's right that men should be at the mercy of a woman's choice unless we're going to respect their choices. We don't get to choose to terminate or place to adopt, without their input, and also get to choose to give birth, without their input, and hold them financially responsible. Or I guess we get to, but I think it's very moral or becoming of us to do so.
You have decided that she tricked him. He actually deceived her.
Sure, in some cases women would use getting pregnant to manipulate a man.
But, the vast majority of the time it is the woman that is impacted most by getting pregnant. She goes through the pregnancy (sometimes with complications), gives birth, breastfeeds, and unless she abandons her child (I'm not talking about adoption, I mean if she chooses not to adopt and then abandons her child) she will raise the child, and she can't get out of it by claiming that it's not her child or that she was tricked. No ordinary person "gets rich" by becoming pregnant (it's really quite the opposite in reality). Sure, those professional athlete's situations are different, but that is not the norm for most people.
It just seems like people are going to such extremes. Women and men can do things to manipulate and harm and use children in the process. Mothers and fathers can be harmed by the decisions in court (custody battles). I don't want to get into the details, but it's really horrendous (for the children).
I don't think she was tricked. I think the guy is a grade A d!ck. And legally, I believe that the man should be responsible if the mother requires or requests it. In a perfect world, they'd all be happy about it, be devoted parents, emotionally and financially, etc. But in the case of the ones who said from the start that they don't want to be a parent, I think women should try to respect that decision and not throw around accusations of deadbeat dads. If you absolutely can't do it on your own, legally you can go after a guy who doesn't want to be a parent, but should you? If it's in the best interest of the child, sure.
Look, the mommy side of me wants to shout to go after this a-hole for everything she can get (for her child), because he sounds like a major POS. But I don't think all guys who don't want to take a role in a child's life are a-holes, anymore than I think that about women who want to place for adoption.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions