Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
DaddyTJ

Member
Registered:
Posts: 35
Reply with quote  #1 
We, as the one's who pay child support have that amount set by a piece of our government.  Our government decides how much money our children cost per month.  Naturally we are losing out in the end.  Not only do we not get to be as big of a force in our childs life (in my case, I get every other weekend and 5 weeks during the summer), but we are put in a financial burden.  Wouldn't it be a trip if our elected officials we forced to live how many (dare I say most) of us do with as little as we do and see if they can still say it's fair?  I mean many (again dare I say most) of us make very little after taxes, health insurance and child support.  I, myself, make decent wages pre-deductions, but post-deductions I am stricken in poverty.  But our elected officials believe it's fair, so what do we know?

Let me break it down for you...

Right now, I pay Delta (my oldest daughter's mom) around $90 a month (including back child support).  That is MUCH lower than most other's simply because I had it lowered a few years ago while I was trying to gain an education and only had time to work a part time job.  I pay Tara (my youngest daughter's mom) $150 per month, plus $50 back child support, which is still lower than most but it was an agreement made during our divorce.  Delta wants more money because Tara gets more money.  To quote her: "You can afford to pay Tara more, so you can obviously afford to pay me more."  Ignorant (explative)...anyway.

Their situations are similar.  They both live with their parents and pay no rent.  They both work at Wal-Mart (different cities), except Delta has worked there slightly longer.  They both make about the same per year (Delta gets paid more since she works in Des Moines, while Tara works 3rd shift in Waterloo).  Here's the biggest difference though.  Delta has few bills.  She has her cell phone and whatever my daughter needs, she's never had a car or a liscense, so she doesn't need to worry about a car payment/insurance or gas.  She doesn't have to worry about rent, utilities or anything of that nature.  So that's basically it.  She has to pay for a divorce she's in the middle of, but still that's not my problem.  Delta is on food stamps too, so that's basically her rent, she provides much of the food in that house.  She does send my daughter to daycare while she's at work, but according to her it's my fault she has to pay so much for daycare.

Tara on the other hand has WAY more bills.  She owns her car, but has to have high risk insurance (she has a leadfoot), plus she lives 30 miles away and drives to Waterloo/CF every day, at least once a day.  She has credit cards (3 to my knowledge).  She owns her own house (bought while we were married, but she's currently renting it out, but still pays part of the mortgage herself, which is her problem), she has homeowners insurance, property taxes, upkeep.  She has her cell phone.  She also goes to college and pays a portion of her student loans every month.  She buys stuff for our daughter, plus my oldest daughter (toys, clothes, etc.).  I know for a fact that almost all, if not all of my child support to her goes to my daughter and yet, she can make it just fine on what she gets.

So what is a fair amount?  My youngest daughter requires more than my oldest does, afterall she is still in diapers and is close to the potty training stage.  My oldest daughter is about to start kindergarten.

Sitting back and talking with Brian's brother-in-law (who is one of my supervisor's) got me thinking and I'm guessing part of his thoughts are actually Brian's thoughts.  Say a child costs $400 per month.  Why is it that the non-custodial parent has to pay most of that?  If the parents were still together, the cost would basically be joint and be split equally.  So why aren't the custodial parents forced to pay child support too.  Much like food stamps, the money should be put on a card that can only be used for certain items and both parents should have access to it (obviously the non-cp would not have access to as much).  The money would not be able to buy cigarrettes, booze or other things the child obviously does not need/use.

Now, regarding housing.  If my ex's and I did not have children together, they would still have to put a roof over their head and everything else that goes with that.  Why should I have to provide money for something they'd need anyway?  I don't get child support from her when I have my children, yet I am still obligated to put a roof over their head, food in their bellies and clothes on their backs and I'm suppose to do it on far less money than my ex's do.

Also, say I work my tail off to make a decent day's wage (which I would consider decent being in the $30k a year range) and Delta chooses to work at Wal-Mart her entire life, in the photo-lab and not bettering herself.  Why does a child cost more money with the custodial parent since I work harder to make more money?  Why is there not a set amount a child "costs" per month that isn't based on the wages of the non-custodial parent?  Meaning why isn't the amount set at, say, $300 a month rather than jumping around depending on what the NCP makes?  If I were to get a college degree to better myself and not work in dead-end jobs the rest of my life, why should Delta be entitled to more money since I chose to better myself by going to college?  That's what really irks me about child support.

I'm all for supporting my children financially, but I'm all for equality coming from both parents, not just one.  I'm all for supporting them, but not at the risk of not being able to provide the basic needs for myself (home, car, health insurance, utilities, clothes and food).  I look at my situation now and I bring home less than $900 a month and right away I have to deduct approximately $700 for rent, car payment and utilities.  I haven't even gotten to food or gas to put in that car.  I have expired tags on my car and no insurance because I simply can't afford it.  I have cheap rent compared to every other apartment I've lived in, so it's not like I'm living the "good life," it's just that I'm currently surviving (though my utility bill is $500+ behind). 

Why is it that the non-custodial parent has to suffer like this?  I know there are many lousy NCP's who don't deserve to spend a weekend with their child(ren), but there are many of us who do everything in our power to spend time with our children and never miss a visit and give them the best life possible while they are with us.  We are suppose to do everything we can to make sure their time with us is about the same as while they are with their other parents, so why can't the government support the NCP's the same as they support the CP's?

Ok, I'm done ranting.  I just wish something could be done to change this.  This whole system seems unconstitutional to me.  Heck, illegal immigrants have more rights than non-custodial parents have.  Legal immigrants (say from Bosnia or somewhere else) have more rights than we have.  Somehow this has to change, unfortuantely, I don't see it happening in our lifetime.
jessr1973

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 120
Reply with quote  #2 

We all understand how you feel and what you are going through. I guess I see it as no matter if you are married or not the child needs to be taken care of. I make $11 and hour, so that is $440 a week and so on. I pay health care which is (like everyone knows) expensive. When you take that and taxes out of my check it is not much left over. Then you have to think everyone (well most) need a car to go back and forth to work- so their is an expense regardless of if you own it or not. (payment, gas, insurance, repairs) Our kid needs daycare, most parents want a good daycare that is safe and good for your child. Kids need clothes at both homes, I buy clothes and he buys clothes, but if it is a special event or anything like that he always asks to use mine and that is ok. I see it as why buy an extra outfit if it will only get worn once! He has a few outfits incase our child gets dirty or anything on those lines. Rent or house payments are both coming from the parents. Most males I know only have a one bedroom apartment or a one or two bedroom house. Most females I know have a two bedroom apartment or house. Personally I feel every one needs their own space. Also along with that is insurance and taxes. You have your normal utlities with a house or apartment. When all that is taken out of a person's check yes that is a lot. Children also have toys at each house and sometimes go from one house to the other. Not a big problem. When all is said and done, no matter how you look at it the kid needs to be taken care of, in your house or not. Yes if the mother or father is spending all their money on "adult beverages" and smokes then yes that is a probelm. But we can not control what they do. From pesonal experience I have an ex that he spends plenty of time pointing his finger at me and telling me I am doing wrong, and it is not me that is doing wrong. He is guilty of the wrong and just needs someone to blame and that ends up being me. I did once have him tell me that it is nice I do stay home and spend time with our child. Shocking! Not all situations are the same, but the more children see their parents pointing the finger at each other for being broke the more the kids get involved. My child asks me if I am broke and I have to say "I am not broke just a few pennies short". Kids don't understand and it isn't their fault. No matter if a parent pays $50 a month or $1200 a month they always think it is to much. Remember kill each other with kindness and love your kids! I know this might not make you feel better, but seeing that smile on your child's face will make things better for awhile.

DaddyTJ

Member
Registered:
Posts: 35
Reply with quote  #3 
Like I said, I have no problem paying child support.  My children are my responsibility, but they are also my ex's responsibility.  I shouldn't have to provide everything for them.  It's not my ex-wife I'm bitter at, it's that money-hungry (explative) of a mother of my oldest.  In my situation, I can compare.  One daughter's mom makes it just fine making similar wages compared to the other, but the other needs more money with less bills.  She doesn't care whether my oldest daughter spends time with me or not, even going as far as to tell my daughter that her last name is different from mine (which it's not). 

When we first split up, I went 3 months without seeing my daughter while we went through a custody hearing (which I filed for custody and lost obviously) and when I did get to see her, I find out 2 hours before I was suppose to drive 60 miles to get her that I had to provide a car seat and clothes for her, that she wouldn't be sending clothes or a car seat.  It's not like your situation with her.  She sends her in clothes and sends a clean outfit for the trip home, but refuses to provide anything else.  She won't let my daughter bring any toys or anything like that.  My ex-wife on the other hand, will send a special outfit if I request, she'll send toys if my daughter wants to bring them, she'll even bring my daughter to my house if I ask her to, especially if I'm really low on cash.  At first she wasn't like that, but she has changed a lot in the past year.

All I want is equality.  I understand children cost a lot, especially if you have custody of them, but many (dare I say most) custodial parents, along with CSRU and the government don't care how much it costs the non-custodial parents to have them for even a weekend.  I see both ends of the spectrum.  I see one who only wants the money for her own benefit and I see one who uses the money for it's intended purpose.
jmposts

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 121
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
There is not a shred of evidence ever presented by a government agency or an academic study that there was a problem of fathers not supporting their children and paying child support. There is solid evidence of large numbers of children being forcedly separated from their fathers without the fathers having done nothing wrong- Dr. Stephen Baskerville.

On this basis alone, all divorce cases involving child custody should be null and void. Where is the compelling state interest? Especially if there has never been any evidence to support CSRU claim!!!

I can NOT wait to hear Dr. Baskerville speak at the NCP Rally in Des Moines!!!
riyamisra

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 50
Reply with quote  #5 
Thanks for sharing cotton jackets for womens womens winter jackets amazon stylish jackets stylish leather jackets for men best leather jackets brands fire stick kodi install kodi on windows 10 how to update kodi subtitles kodi exodus install covenant Kodi live TV setup
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!