Its cheaper to keep her...

[Curval]

Wow.

Some very tough stuff in this thread.

I really feel for everyone involved...Jamusta, Capt and his friend, and the children.

Vent away Jamusta..I'm reading it.  I wish I had a solution for you man.  

Where is all this support going btw?  I think Capt. has the right idea...audit both sides of the equasion.  Child support isn't going to mean squat if a father kills himself.  Is your wife working?  Does she take vacations while you are working 2 and 3 jobs?

[fffreeze220]

No woman no cry

[Martlet]

Originally posted by jamusta
Step up to the plate?

I did. how many jobs did you have last year? I had 3 at one time. 2 full time jobs and the reserves. I lost 20lbs in a month. Lack of sleep was the biggest problem. I dont need sympathy. I just need to vent and to see who else has been through this. Obviously you havent..

 

What does the number of jobs I have got to do with anything?  I don't start families I can't afford to support.  I've "been through it" in my own way, though.  By watching my tax dollars support the families of dead beat dads.

Vent away, though, if it makes you feel better.  If you are honestly getting screwed in child support, then take her to court.

[Curval]

Martlet, don't you think you are being a bit unfair.

Situations change.  People change.  

There are lots of dead-beat dad's and I agree with you that they need to get responsible, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening here.  Because of the extraodinary numbers of dead-beat dads the system has leaned way too far onto the rights of mothers...the assumption being that the male is at fault.  But it isn't so "cut and dry" in every case.

[Creamo]

Last New Years, me and my best friend, who happens to be my Brother-In-Law, celebrated the New Years with champagne not for the calendar event, but his first year making over $100,000 dollars as they just did their taxes. He’s an engineer for Hewlett Packard.

 He has a daughter with my sister, and that is just a terrific family meld of sorts. Visiting them is just perfect.

Thing is, he plays drums in a band and met a beer drinking skank that after 13 years with my sister is more fun, or so he believes.

Now this is MY sister, and My best friend. Guess what he gets after popping the champagne bottle at his house and left my sister after a fight, filing for divorce?

From the court, he gets per-divorce $1200 a month to pay rent, buy weed before a show, and entertain a chubby Wisconsinite skank that loves his band. $4000 for my sister.

"Sympathy" is right between Sh*t and Syphilis in the dictionary.

Now you all know.

Be a MAN or be Punkd.

[Curval]

That sucks and I don't blame you for feeling that way Creamo.  

Problem is, a woman "can" use the system that enabled such excellent economic retribution on your former brother in law to her advantage and is empowered legally to act in much the same way he did towards your sister except without consequences.  (except in the case of Capt. Apathy's friend obviously, and the inevitable scarring to the children which will happen either way.)

[Creamo]

I don't give a sh*t one way or another regarding law or what a woman can and cannot do.

I do know because my bro-in-law/best friend wants to chase skank rather than be a man to his kid and wife, a simple and rewarding family visit is now an impossible event to see my sister, neice, and best friend, in a holiday setting, which I put HUGE worth in.

Should she be able to "use the system that enabled such excellent economic retribution on your former brother in law to her advantage and is empowered legally to act in much the same way he did towards your sister except without consequences"?

No! I think...., christ.  What in the fuk were you saying?! lol.

She should be able to put my neice in a house, continue as a teacher, and carry on after 13 years as a working house wife? All while concidering he said this wasn't his bag and wanted to entertain Harley Chicks in Milwaukee bars? On his dime, and 2 quarters too?

Yup.

[Curval]

Okay..layman's terms.

A chick can screw a guy by using the system.  This system benefitted your sister, and rightly so, but can be used against guys who don't deserve it.  They have been good fathers and husbands.

[capt. apathy]

I see what you're saying creamo( I thnk. the big problem is that withthe no-fault divorce laws you end up with the women getting the deal you discribe even if he was the steady dependable parent & she was the one who threw it all away for some party time.

the courts go into these 'zero-tolarance' programs to get tough on dead-beats, wich on the serface seems a good thing.  but in fact 'zero-tolorance' translates into arbitrary decisions with out looking into the details of the situation.  

sometimes the kids suffer, not because the dad doesn't pay, but because the mom uses the money to buy her new boyfriend a harley. (seen that more than a couple times).  

I see nothing wrong with accountability.  you have your kids you should support them, no question about that.

  but accountability should be a 2 way street,  if the courts are gonna get involved to insure the father is accountable for his suport.  then they should also take the effort to make sure the money is going where it's suposed to.

I'm not advocating creating some big gov't monster that watchdogs over every child from divorced parents.  but it seems reasonable that if the courts can take the effort to back up a mother  if she complains the father isn't paying,  then a father should be able to get the same participation by the court when he believes the money isn't going to the kids.

as I see it, it would be a win/win situation.  fathers who are watching their suport money go to partys, dope, and supplying spending money that doesn't have to be subtrated from the mothers welfare, will get some sort of satisfaction (either custody for themselves or the appointmet of a someone to supervise expenditures on women with a history of abusing the suport system). and mothers who are doing their job and spending aproprietly will lose nothing.

an added bonus to this would be that maybe if we made the laws so it wasn't like hitting the lotto everytime a welfare mom gets pregnant there might be a few less kids around from broken homes.

[hazed-]

serves you right for marrying the b*tch and having kids with her

what did you expect?  to go on living like a carefree batchelor now your away from her? oooooooooooooooooo no you got that wrong.

If you have kids you have to pay. you cant afford to pay? dont leave your wife or better yet DONT have kids you cant afford. You want to be free of your wife? (and kids?) then you have to damn well pay for them to be brought up. As far as i have seen the payments are worked out against the estimated costs of bringing up a child. You had the children and therefore you should pay for them.If you have some problem with the level of your payment then i suggest you get off your bellybutton and go and prove you cannot afford the money in a court. When you say you are paying for them and in actual fact the GOVERNMENT is paying for them through child support that means WE ALL are paying for them. Maybe if people didnt have kids until they could afford to financially support them we would all have more money to spend eh?

hehe at least this is what i think (before ive had kids) we'll see what i think after, things might be different. One thing i do know is, I wont have kids unless i know i can afford to bring them up well.

[capt. apathy]

did you even read the above posts?  where not talking about people who had kids they can't afford.  or guys who want to be free of the kids and not pay.

te topic guys who make a good faith effort to be a father and husband.  then the squeak leaves taking the kids, and exploits the system (that was designed to protect women from dead-beats who have no interest in paying), and uses it to continually ruin the life of the guy (as if what she did while married wasn't enough) after they separate.

people keep bringing up the irisponsable people who won't pay.  but that's not the subject here, those people do exist, but the problem is good people who are trying to do the right thing are being robbed (with gov't help) by dead beat squeakes who would rather have a kid ever 18 months or so then work.

now if she's on the 2nd or 3rd kid you would expect the guy to see it comming, but if you're the unluck first guy, you really have no warning.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Curval
Martlet, don't you think you are being a bit unfair.

Situations change.  People change.  

.

Possibly.  It's hard to say without knowing the whole story.

Some things he said are obviously way off.  If he's paying 100% housing and medical, regardless if his ex wives are in the military, then he should go back to court.  He can get a back dated support order and alleviate some of his arrears.

However, having children in 2 seperate households is going to be more costly than having the same number of children under one roof.  And rightly so.

[Saurdaukar]

Pre-Nup.

[k2cok]

Mens "justice" and womens "justice".

I won custody of my daughter in the divorce, got the house, also all the bills from the marriage.

My ex-wife was in excess of $13,000 behind in child support, I filed felony charges against her, (failure to provide for a minor child) the D.A. called her attorney, she was never arrested, the charge dropped by the D.A.

A year later she took me back to court for change of custody,  the judge ignored all the wicked sh*t she had done and gave her custody.  

I later became unemployed and was $1,500 behind in support, I was arrested----sentenced to 90 days in jail and only was released after I borrowed the full amount to pay her off.

If women didn't have a ***** there would be a bounty on their heads.

[udet]

it's a sad world we live in....
jamusta, instead of worrying about money why don't you worry about your kid growing up in a broken home