The other day I overheard a conversation in which a man was complaining about having to pay child support. He told his friend, “…and every time I see my ex, she’s wearing new shoes. Can you believe that?”
No! How dare that woman purchase new shoes! Everybody knows your former, evil seductress — the one who’s now single-handedly rearing your contribution to the Great DNA Swim — should be forced to walk on tacks and broken glass before she’s permitted multiple footwear options. For crying in a bucket, what a wench!
Look, Moron, one of the popular, oft-intrinsic benefits of being born with a uterus is the ability to hone in on hella-reduced shoes. For what you spent on lunch that day, bitching and moaning about the financial woe of being a weekend parent, I could have purchased two pairs of shoes, maybe three — and in less time than what it took you to order, eat, and calculate a ten percent tip for your “busy waitress chick with the saggy tits.” (At least you’re across-the-board in your effort to be crowned Mr. Silas Marner 2008.)
Yet, you’re not really complaining about the cost of footwear, though, right? Nah, you’re mad because she’s taking your kid-money and doesn’t appear to be suffering. In fact, she’s going about business as usual. I would have enjoyed eavesdropping your honest sentiments, which might have been more along the lines of: “And every time I see my ex, I’m freakin’ irritated she’s not begging on the corner of Market and Stemmons.” Or how about: “And every time I see my ex, I still notice every detail,” because, let’s face it, you’re still wrapped up in the drama of your split. It’s not about your child, and that pisses me off. Why? Because it takes a village to compensate for the mistakes of its idiots. I don’t enjoy picking up your slack — emotionally OR monetarily.
Allow me to clear things up somewhat. Custodial parents do not “qualify” for child support from non-custodial parents; they’re entitled to it. This is not about charity, and you aren’t some kind of hero if you submit regular payments to your baby mama/daddy. In fact, bragging about that sort of thing is about as silly as telling people how rad you are for stopping at red lights. Furthermore, the money is about your kiddo’s welfare. If new shoes are something Baby Mama needs to wear in order to bring home her share of the bacon for Little Precious, so be it. It’s not like she’s laying around eating bon-bons in those shoes you bought her. If so, you should have fought for full custody (and been more selective with whom you impregnated). Deal with it or shut up, Silas.
Things I do with my shoes (that your ex might also do): Clean Little Precious’ room, take Little Precious to school, slay scary bugs for Little Precious, prepare Little Precious’ meals, purchase Little Precious’ groceries, take LP to the movies and the library and the pool and Six Flags and and AND…well, hopefully, you get the idea. Man, it would suck to do all of that barefooted or with only one pair. I’d hate to wear my work boots to the public pool. Likewise, I shiver to think of how hideously imbalanced your child might be if his/her mother is expected to live like some kind of little matchbox girl in order to save for that Lamborghini Gallardo you probably think she should purchase for his sixteenth birthday gift (after ALL those years of receiving your child support).
Chirrens ain’t cheap or easy. If you think a few hundred bucks here and there will float the boat, you should be sterilized right this second. Seriously, you really should — because your semen shouldn’t be allowed to contaminate the gene pool any further. You should WANT to make sure your child has everything he/she needs to avoid making your mistakes, to be successful in her endeavors, yeah? Well, sometimes that isn’t free. Sometimes it takes a lot of friggin’ “shoes” to make that happen. There’s a difference between being a good, attentive parent and just being an ATM. You often have to be both AND in a way that’s also good for your own well-being. Otherwise, you create a spoiled brat who’s been allowed to suck your lifeblood dry. Your baby mama does you no justice if she deprives herself. Therefore, when you see her sporting those new shoes, know she deserves them; after all, she’s wearing them when she’s singing Hannah Montana with your kid.
As for me, I can’t complain. My ex knows cool kicks are a small price to pay for the woman who loves his child as much as he does.
Ditto!!
Can you post this on the wall at Goldrush, please? Next to that booth in the back. Thanks.
Ack, I hear nothing. I hear nothing! I cause no war! I speak no English, heh, but I can attest to your ex’s love for your child.
I did not write this last year. I wrote it today. Likewise, I’m sure Mer would not have had many pleasant things to say during all phases of our separation/divorce/blechness, especially when we were behaving like an episode of COPS. It’s just a crappy, bitter time under all circumstances and for everybody when families split.
That would be creepy if it was a fun celebration.
This concludes my Jack Handy portion of the comment section.
If you ever drop your car keys in a pit of molten lava, just let ‘em go. ‘Cause man… they’re gone.
Jack Handy
Not ALL mothers are good mothers. I paid child support from the moment I escaped made my escape. She was violently abusive and the grounds for the divorce was adultery, on her part. She also had substance abuse problems. I had to make over $1500 a month just to pay the support and yes I felt that it was excessive. She held the fact that the courts would give her my kids and my income over my head for 16 years. I got free and now I have a happy life. Not all women are good people. Not all women deserve custody. I’m sure that a lot of the child support went to booze and drugs and the courts don’t care. They are used to giving women everything. The system is sure working, isn’t it?
I’m sorry you had a bad experience, truly, and am glad you respected your children/obeyed the court orders by paying child support, Tom, but I’m confused by your comment. I never said anything about all women being good mothers or deserving of custody. In fact, I referred to both women AND men in this piece (as well as in my tags). I invite you to read it again because it is absolutely NOT sexist and was written as a letter to the anonymous person I overheard that day at lunch.
My father fought for custody of me…and won…in TEXAS…when I was three years old in the mid-seventies for crying out loud. My mother, WHO WAS A SOBER SCHOOL TEACHER, didn’t pay support. I see your spin on my commentary and raise you everything you’ve got left on the table. ;)
When I went to live with Mom during my high school years, Dad ALSO gave her no support. It’s not a Mom thing or a Dad thing; it’s a dead beat thing. (I hate to use my parents as examples, but, hey, that’s not something they got right back then.)
Furthermore, the grounds for divorce have zero bearing on child support. You got divorced for reasons that were not your kids’ faults, right? Why does it matter then? I could go on about all the crap my ex did and that I did, but, hey, we got divorced. Holding on to that bitterness, for us, would be detrimental to our abilities to work together as parents of a child — because, really, that’s our only commitment to one another at this point. I will NOT punish my kid by harboring hate in my heart toward her father.
I don’t mean to sound harshly toward you, Tom. Just being honest in return. I know this is a touchy subject and I appreciate all cognitive points of view for the purpose of discussion.
Thanks for reading and posting your thoughts!
I take care of my kids to no end and without hesitation. But what I refuse to do is allow there mother to support her dead beat boyfriend before she takes care of our kids. Buying things off of what I pay more then willingly. My kids go with out, but that emotional termoil, fails in comparison to the emotional stress they will recieve from me and me ex fighting. Well My ex and I dont fight at all actually. Us braking up was the best thing that ever happened to me. My kids will be fine. But I will not allow my money my hard earned money to go to anything else other then my kids. You might say that she has every right to spend that support on anything she please’s and it’s true, but I have every right to be concerned about the well being of my kids. Especially when I provide enough money to get them everything they want and need. But I work hard to get a raise and promotion, not to just hand it over to her. Especially when I see my kids wearing old clothes handed down to them, not being able to do after school programs, or my son who has and will always have (hydrosephilus) fluid on the brain, and having to pay 100% of the doctor bills because mommy doesn’t have any money, even though it’s court ordered for her to pay the doctor bills, and for me to provide the insurance. My Insurance has saved her from over $100,000.00 in bills.
Look sweetheart, I loved your blog. Your an excelent writer. I didnt have any issue to the comment on the guy pissed off because his kids mom had new shoe’s. She has a right to wear new shoe’s but chances are she bought them with her own money, but who cares. You seemed really defensive of “the mom” So me and my battle for a fathers right’s as a parent, had to be defended. I got the immpression that you were generalizing all mothers as an equal. But none the less my son who is 9 now is already saying that when he turns 12 he wants to go into court and tell the judge he wants to live with his dad, wich that is state law in wisconsin that at that age the child gets to chose. Anyway it’s been nice writing you. I love your blog! I’m a big fan! Be little easy on the dad, there all not created equal!LOL
Gentlemen’s Lounge Guy: God, can you change your name, at least? It’s very Topless Bar-esque, which doesn’t help your public plight.
I’m sure the connected links to Yahoo’s various fathers’ forums would appreciate it. ;)
I replied to you on Alexandria: http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/child-support-for-dummies/#comment-8041
Jabs aside, I am glad you read the commentary again and responded. That’s open-minded, and I respect it.
If you call me “Sweetheart” ever again, I’ll unleash my Teamster inner bitch. Thanks, Lounge.
Until we take the money exchange out of the equation the courts will continue to rip fit,willing,and able parents from thier children. We need all parents to go on strike until equal parenting becomes the law of the land and not the exception.
The incentives of Title IV-D of the social security act creates negative outcomes on our families for the states and courts to profit from the constant conflict generated in this winner take all system.
Child support is what you do with your children not how much money you can pay someone else to do it for you.
http://www.myspace.com/familyrights
You are not a better parent because you pay more child support then the parent next to you. Calling someone a NCP is as bad as calling a tanm person a spick. They are parents not ATM’s and have the natural riught to equally raise thier children. As parents we have an obligation to end these destructive courts for our children.
Child Support payments are a poor substitute to direct parental care
and support, and are an incentive to destroy marriage snd remove
fathers from the lives of thier children. Since single parent
children suffer vastly higher medical, psychological problems, higher
school drop out rates, incarceration, drug use, violence, abuse,
suicide, etc.. we must reasonably conclude that the preverse ‘best
interests’ by family courts is in fact nothing more than institional
abuse of our children.
In his book “The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments” William
S. Comanor addresses the phenomenon of the ‘Deadbeat Dad’ starting
with the well known example of the ‘baby momma’ scenerio, showing
that since dads pay money to the state, and AFDC pays the mother,
there simply is no incentives for fathers to pay support thru the
system, because every $1 paid contributes $0 additional benefit to
the child, and only payments ‘under the table’ directly to the mother
or child have any real benefit to the child.
The ‘Child Support Civil Disobedience’ movement reaches a similar
conclusion. Many NCP’s argue that all parents should, and do, have a
responsibility to care for thier child, but that making these
payments thru the state is the least responsible course of action,
because doing so funds a corrupt and evil machine that feeds off of
the destruction of families, and keeping parents away from thier
children. This argument further holds that the only ‘real’ support a
NCP gives a child is the time and money actually spent with, and on a
child. In other words, the forced ‘child support payment’ to the
state is viewed as having no benefit to the child, while ‘direct’
payments such as time and money spent durring ‘visits’, going on
outings, buying the child clothing, schools supplies, etc.. is viewed
as the only ‘real’ means to satisify a parent’s moral obligation to
support thier child.
The book by Comanor explains ‘Child Support Civil Disobedience’
argument with an analysis of the difference between individual and
collective consumption preferences. The amount each parent allocates
to spend on the child in a marriage is dependant upon collective
resources. Child support payments directly raises the income of the
custdial parent, thus raising the consumption preference of that
parent, so that only a portion of the NCP’s child support payment is
now allocated to the child. So, like in the welfare ‘baby momma’
scenerio, each $1 dollar of NCP support payment is no longer $1 going
to the child, but only a fraction is apportioned to the child, with
the remainder enhancing the consumption of the CP due to the increase
income caused by the support payment. So the NCP views ‘off the
books’ support payments directly on the child as a dollar for dollar
contribution to the child, while forced state run ‘child support
payments’ are viewed as contributing little or nothing to the child.
In the case of a high conflict divorce, reasonable parents may
conclude that none of thier ‘child support payments’ does anything at
all to support thier child. The all Street Journal published a recent
study showing the average legal fees for divorce to be about
$78,000. In other words a $500/month child support payment by the NCP
to the CP would take 13 years to payoff typical legal fees needed
to ‘win’ the custody battle and resulting child support payment. Thus
$1 of ‘lawyer support’ payment goes to creating the non-custodial
parent = $0 benefit to the child. Considering these facts, the idea
of ‘Lawyer Support’ civil disobedience has a much nicer ring to it.
The cost of typical custody dispute legal fees is also about the cost
of sending a child to a decent college for 4 years, and for most
parents it is not merely consumption ‘preferences’ but income
restrictions that lead many parents to avoid making payments to the
state or the CP. Legal fees change the consumption preferences and
ability of parents and reduce expenditure on children accordingly.
Other examples could be a NCP enrolling a child in daycare, hiring a
babysitter or other activity after divorce, and taking the child
caring role of the NCP who is restricted contact after divorce, in
this scenerio the ‘support payments’ do very little to enhance the
child in any real manner, but simply transfer both the income and the
role of the NCP to a third party, often against the wishes and
preferences of the NCP. So when a NCP shares the care of a child, he
may have prefernces to care for the child and spend say $500 a month
on the child, and the child directly benefits $500. When forced out
of the family by the state the $500 a month ‘support payment’ taken
from the NCP may only be sufficient to pay a 3rd party, babysitter or
other program, to replace the father’s natural preference to care
for the child. In this common scenerio the child recieves $0 benefit
from this transfer.
Due to matching federal funds, and other programs funded based upon
the creation of NCP’s, child support payments are a main source of
income to the corrupt and abusive extortion racket that we call
family court that profits from, and is responsible for, increased
divorces and destruction of children’s bonds with the NCP.
Fred
http://www.f4jfl.com
“Child Support payments are a poor substitute to direct parental care
and support, and are an incentive to destroy marriage snd remove
fathers from the lives of thier children.”
That is like saying that cat litter is a poor excuse for housebreaking a cat.
As a child of divorced parents my father gladly gave my mother money, was never court ordered to, never had to. It wasn’t to only help me, it was to help with everything. Electricity, Gas, Water, Food, Clothes, Doctors, School, etc.
My father did that because he was a great father, he realized he’d brought something into this world that he was responsible for and helping my mother help me was his duty as far as he was concerned. Of course that extra money helped her too, it had to, otherwise it would have hurt me in the end.
People that think they do not need to pay are the same type of people that would tie up kittens in a sac and throw them into the lake rather than take responsibility for them.
Hi, Fred. Thank you so much for posting. I read your lengthy post and appreciate the time you invested. One can assume this topic is also important to you.
Now, please, correct me if I have misunderstood you because my intentions here are NOT to mince your words, but: Are you suggesting non-custodial parents should not have to submit payments to the custodial parent, but instead to the child during visitation and directly? For instance, are you meaning support in the form of clothing, entertainment, and savings accounts for college, etc.?
Eh, Fred, in a perfect world, families would stay together happily. I spent twenty years with the man I divorced. In my case, the three of us are better for it. I can say from personal experience that child support was never a deciding factor when I decided to separate from my spouse. In fact, that cracks me up. I can see your argument for that in the dissolution of marriages where the custodial parent stands to gain a great sum of money. That is usually NOT the case, however, with most of us living in the a middle and lower-middle class societal bracket.
I agree that it’d be awfully swell if the NCP spent his/her fair share on the child without the courts ordering payment. Think of all the peace, love, and harmony. *Sigh* Likewise, it would be roses and sunshine if all custodial parents demonstrated respect and dignity toward the direction of those funds to the child. My former husband proudly pays support to me through the state’s program. We agreed that would eliminate financial squabbling between us — and it did. We talk almost daily about our child’s school schedules and the like, he sees her as much as he wants, can call whenever, and we both have an open-door policy because we care enough not to make this about ourselves. Is that the right way for everybody? I think so, but your post suggests otherwise.
There are, in fact, bills that custodial parents generate as a direct result from caring for his/her child. I realize you are not stupid and have consideration for this, Fred, but there are folks out there who think it doesn’t cost as much as it does. I spent over 200 bucks for about five shirts, two pairs of jeans, a sweater, new shoes, and a bag for my little girl last week. This HAS to be done, again, as you are aware, at least every couple of months. Kids grow. And fast. They’re also incredibly hard on their belongings by nature of being kids. She also has to have school uniforms. I spend about two hundred and fifty bucks a year on those — not counting socks and tights and matching hair ribbons, etc. I have to drive her to school, so I need a vehicle. I’d have one anyway, naturally, but keep in mind I put about HALF of the mileage on our vehicle toward chauffeuring our kiddo to school and other appointments. I work five minutes from home. Her school is twenty minutes away. I drive about an hour and a half additionally JUST to take her to school and pick her up.
If I didn’t have my daughter, we wouldn’t need to pay for two bedrooms. I’d have an efficiency or a roommate. Also, if I didn’t have her, I wouldn’t have to pay for her water, electric, and gas usage. I haven’t even factored in groceries. Or school lunches. Or PTA expenses. Or school photos, fundraisers, year books, club fees for choir and science. OR anything else that my ex-spouse and I want for our child to have.
Furthermore, if I didn’t receive aid from my former spouse, my kid would most likely have to spend more time with someone other than myself, like a daycare provider. I’d have to get a second job, and the situation would become more like what you described rather than what is happening now.
Our kid is at the top of her gifted and talented class in academics and in citizenship. She belongs to the science club, the honor choir, the news media crew, the peer mediation society, the Respect Corps, and was recently asked by her school’s principal to represent the entire student body before the school board at the next meeting. In addition to that, she is computer literate (Mac and PC both), an avid reader, and, I assure you, knows more about arts and humanities than she would if we were forced into some kind of bizarro world where mothers’ and fathers’ parental decisions to INVOLVE the courts were revoked in exchange for madness. I mean, it’s not as if we got divorced because we got along, Fred. The upside is we get along quite well now.
I would assume, and again, correct me if I am wrong, that you belong to a percentage of fathers who are unhappy with the current system. As with anything, there will be flaws. In fact, there are sadly some serious flaws. At the same time, it does NOT excuse a man OR a woman from refusing the fair share of care for the child or expecting the custodial parent, man OR woman, to live below his/her economic earnings just to pick up your [plural you, please] slack — even as a working parent, like myself. I am not suggesting you agree with that either, but that was the point of what I wrote.
I am correct in assuming we both want dead-beat parentage to end, yes?
I am happy to leave your post up, but in the future, please include a valid link to scientific data/research or objective reporting for any and all claims you present as facts. I invite you to leave these links here as well for future readers to further peruse your POV.
Again, thanks, Fred!
Joemaflage wrote: “Calling someone a NCP is as bad as calling a tanm person a spick.” [sic]
Cool, I’ll let Fred know.
You know what? I agree with you. I do. Now how are you going to enforce these parents (is that like calling someone an “ick”?) to play fairly? To share equally? You gotta enforce it. Who will do that? You? If so, you are a king amongst kings, my man. High fives all around.
And then you said: “They are parents not ATM’s and have the natural riught to equally raise thier children. As parents we have an obligation to end these destructive courts for our children.” *sigh* [sic]
Parents who think that all their kids need is money really ARE just ATMs. Kids need more than cash. I *think* we agreed on this point unless you’re saying that kids only need money. What I wrote was: “There’s a difference between being a good, attentive parent and just being an ATM.” What I meant by that was that NON-CUSTODIAL FOLK (is that better, Joe?) shouldn’t expect CUSTODIAL PEOPLE (how about that?) to run around feverishly compromising themselves as ATMs only.
And, oh, no you didn’t post MySpace as supportive documentation, did you? G H E T T O, Joe. Ghetto. Wow. I spent ten bucks over here. Do yourself a favor. I mean, I love the Space as much as the next person, but it’s not a great link for your pro-family bizwax, ya think? ;) I mean it kindly, man.
Take a lesson from Fred and come back (because my selfish side is loving the page hits. Yowsa!).
KO: I think we are, maybe, spelling it incorrectly. Isn’t it HandEy? Annnd, yes. With an “e”. Ok, now back to the kids…
RO: That’s what they do in Stepford. It’s a Stepford thing. We wouldn’t understand.
Kristan, you it the jackpot! These comments are akin to watching rams in heat head-butt on The Learning Channel.
So, you guys. Serious question. No matter how shitty [opposite parent] happens to be… no matter how passionately you feel for or against paying child support…
do we all agree that no child should suffer your unintended wrath and outrage, however you express it, simply for being your biological by-product? Angry, bitter parents radiate waves that children feel deeply.
This actually applies to child support or gun control or abortion or whatever topic really gets belabored in your more drunken (or, prayerful) moments. Be careful with that shit. Kids listen.
Passionate arguments are fueled by anger and seldom end well.
Does a child need to be exposed to that unnecessarily?
It’s late, so respond accordingly. “Moby Dick, the comment” is always a cheerful and uplifting read the morning after.
Lori: “Moby Dick, the comment” is what I think I’ll rename the Predisastered Pages.
I haven’t hit the jackpot until Bill O’Reilly calls for a ban on me. For what, I’m uncertain, but a girl can dream, yeah?
A child never needs exposure to Moby Dick or anger or bitterness or rams in heat head-butting the night away.
Well, maybe if people took responsibilities for their actions…like when they have a child, they care for it & make sure it has all it needs to have a happy , healthy life, then we wouldn’t have a fucked up family court system.
I can’t possibly top all of this with anything that hasn’t already been dissected and split more ways than a Christmas turkey. I do like the “kittens in a bag” simile, though prefer my own “chain their beloved pets for life in their shelterless backyards” comparison from this morning’s wet-hair soapbox message to the writer. (Sorry, I’m a cat person.)
A little perspective on this from another’s experience is all I can deliver after single-mothering my own Little Precious off to dreamland at the end of a grueling 9 hour work day and grocery shopping to boot. (not NEW boots, of course… my ex gets to pay the bare minimum the state requires but out of respect for personal relationships on both sides I’ll hold that story.)
A woman my age I had the pleasure of befriending last year at community college, let’s call her Michelle, was sisterly enough to share her personal story of divorce with me during my time of extreme anguish while I was going through my own drama. Michelle had about an eighth grade education and was pursuing interests of a “street” nature during what most of us would consider our “normal adolescent period.” At some point during this era she met her husband, who no doubt pursued the same interests and held a similar degree of education. Chirrens were born forthwith. The marriage became violent, increasing in intensity as they will, as the years passed.
Michelle began to reach a milestone in her life when the abuse, physical in nature as well as emotional, psychological, and verbal, (he was a full-service garage) began to bother her only for the sake of her growing daughters with their watchful, teary eyes and innocently probing questions. The volcano erupted one day when, in front of both crying girls, Mr. Wonderful held Michelle down in a prone position and spat directly into her face. All the bitch-slaps, body-punches, and derogatory nick-names hadn’t mattered enough until that day. That was the last damn spit he ever spat and she packed the girls’ bags and with nothing, NOTHING, but the clothes on her back and the fruit of his loins attached to her hips did she trek from Queens, NY to Dallas, TX where she had no one, no family or friends, no job, and no education. It was as far away from him as she could get.
The point of this story fellas is – and start to pay attention here guys – is that every month, without court intervention, without reminding, poking, prodding, or spitting, willingly and happily (i guess), Mr. Wonderful sends Michelle a personal check that always clears for well over a thousand dollars, to use as she sees fit, for the girls. Like clockwork she knows when she can grocery shop, and that her rent will be paid, and that the trauma she and the girls endured during that relationship will not be exacerbated by abject poverty; as if a punishment for releasing them from their prior situation should somehow be forthcoming.
She is ALL THE WAY across the country, and he has no idea what she spends that money on. Sure, she’s no angel. She’s getting her life together and going to school, but yeah, she may spend some of those Benjamins on a 40. She may pick up a pair of shoes at Wal-Mart if there’s enough left. I guess he trusts her far enough to know that she’s also puttin’ food in those kids mouths. It’s really none of his goddamn business, now is it? You see, once that check is endorsed and cashed it becomes HER money. Even HE is not controlling enough to tell her how to spend it.
In Ghetto-ese, which some of you are fluent in: SHUT YO SORRY-ASS MOUF AND TAKE CARE YO GODDAM CHIRRENS! If this abusive, felonious, uneducated BASTARD understands the importance of providing for the life you create – no matter how much you wanna slap Mama – and pays the bitch that dared to leave him without so much as a whimper or a phone call having to be made, without ever going the “Baby Daddy’s Attorney General” route (which I’m NOT knocking, but should be reserved primarily for situations in which paternity is in question, NOT to drag the mother of your child through as if you’d never seen either one of them in your life)…
If HE gets it, what does that make YOU? Get your Hefty bags ready… there’s a new litter born every minute!
Thanks, Kristen. I’ll put in a bad word for you with O’Reilly. Oh, and I think it is H-A-N-D-Y. No E.
Ko
Was she a white chick?
Is he a bass player?
Because there’s only one thing worse than the bass player…
THE DRUMMER! ;)
(I’m not a white chick, no, if that’s what you’re asking. My ass is far too large for that. I think I usually check the box marked “Native American Caucasoid African European” — or, as we’ll be calling it now: “The Barack O’Bama Box”. He really should add the apostrophe for fun.)
yes… she is actually a white chick from Nebraska named Barb Dundermeyer. her hobbies are parchese, badminton, crocheting, and hittin’ da foties.
watch the bass player comments. god willin’ and the crick don’t rise, some of my future child support payments may come from a bass player. drummers suck.
Great post!!!!! As the recipient for my child’s support, I can say that when those who do not want to pay it does create havoc in the child’s life. Most people in today’s world do not make much money (I know before taxes I only make 16,000 a year of which I also pay for insurance for both myself and the child – another story). I have linked to your story due to the comments of the men on here who again over and over state that child support is illegal blah blah blah.
Yet you will see some of these very same men who litigate and litigate until the child is then placed with them, then they whine (again on and on) aboput how the courts won’t enforce chidl support against the mother and in some cases she does not have to pay. Men cannot have it both ways. If they do not wnt to pay, then they should not expect payment. Also a person’s income should be taken into consideration when calculating payments. I live as cheaply as I can yet my bills still come to 100 less than my income (including child support). If it was me alone the only way I would be able to live is to get married again or live in a roomate situation. I would be unable to have a place for my child to come to visit me. These men will then say to me that our child should live with dad since he makes so much more money than I. Is that fair to the child who has been cared for by me – the mother – for their whole life?
I could go on about this but I will not. One comment caught my eye however. I have not yet been banned by O’Reilly, but have been banned by none other than Glenn Sacks (www.glennsacks.com). Another woman hating website.
Excellent points. I’ll have to pay Glenn’s site a visit and get back to you! These men who hate women always have the most entertaining propaganda. We sit around here and read it like the cast of Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Kristan, you are a genious. I read your first entry on childsupport. I was divorced 4 years ago, and just finished up court yesterday with my children’s father. He insists that he shouldn’t have to pay childsupport or medical bills. This was fun to hear him say to the judge, and even more fun when the judge played along and asked him to explain why. He truely feels that since he took the kids out to eat a few times last year and (get this) got each child one hair cut last year that should be enough. His reasoning of course is that he is not educated and it’s too hard to find a good job. He’s 34 and addicted to video games. The “shoe” example is so accurate for this loser! If I so much as feed myself while I take the kids out to eat, I’m wasting his $314 a month he contribues total for both kids. I’d love to read more of your posts if you have any… let me know where I can find them. Thanks for the laugh!
Well, best of luck to you, Tina. Yours is a good example of why we need family courts, so thanks for speaking up. Glad you found me. Hang in there.
You can find the rest of my posts here: http://predisastered.com/
Or click on the above banner, which should direct you back to the home page.