Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics Ain't This America The Child Support Thread

Rick, whose moral values do you want the court to enforce? That is a nasty thicket that would involve judges in making choices among possible "moral values" (which btw would have prevented a gay parent from ever having custody until now). You are making a value judgment about a "slutty" mother and yet I suggest you don't have enough information to make that judgment. Do you suggest the court should involve itself in investigating the sexual activity of both parents? Long ago it was decided not to do so because it is essentially returning the law to the pre-no fault era of blame and guilt.

Like it or not, Rick, that has long gone and thankfully so. I used to practice in that era and it was a hateful, nasty debacle.



Not quite so fast Rick. First, in most cases both parents work. Even when that is not the case, I have represented fathers who work while the mother did not. The father got custody. One of the factors was showing that not working did not equate with good care. For example, in one case the mother was alcoholic, hence staying at home was actually a detriment.

The point is Rick, almost all cases are far more complex than the soundbite summaries you hear about.

A thought to consider, Rick, would you stay home to take care of three screaming kids just so someone would pay you the $750 a month child support? I doubt it and neither would most women.

In my example, the mom was receiving $2K ($750 per child, plus $500 for the bastard kid) clear - no taxes - a month for three kids. One infant, and at the time, an eleven year old and a nine year old.

This was seven years ago. My bro only has his 17 year old daughter to pay for.

...which, by-the-way, his "ex" took him back to court when the oldest turned 18 - because my bro now had "more" he could contribute to the youngest.

So my bro went from paying $750 to $1300 for his one child.


Additionally, $2k clear per month is about $3300.00 a month before taxes are taken out.

No bad for staying home all day.

Rick, this is not specific to your brother - I would not comment on such a personal situation - but I am troubled by the idea that a father whose economic situation improves, would resent sharing his good fortune with his child.

What you didn't report is, according to your link, 77.2% of custodial parents DID receive "some" or "any" child support. Maybe not the full amount, but there was a contribution.

Here in California, child support never goes away - there is no statute of limitation on collecting child support. If the full amount is not sent, interest is added, and the amount keeps going up and up 'til the full amount is eventually paid.

The resentment comes from this:

It does not require $1300 for the father's HALF to raise a child. In theory, the mother is "contributing" the other HALF as well.

There is no way that it takes $2600 month to raise one kid. I don't even spend that much on myself per month for Pete's sake!!

...so getting back to the resentment - we MEN know that the mother is pocketing a good portion of the money for HERSELF!

Another example, my nieces played soccer. My brother was to contribute to that as well. Um...why is he paying child support?

Rick - of course I reported the 77 percent -

If I had wanted to confuse the issue I'd have collapsed the numbers into "received all" and "did not receive all."

I am pulling numbers and reporting them as honestly and as fairly as I can.

Apologies.

Actually, child support ends at 18 unless the child is still in high school -- or if the parties had agreed otherwise.