fooled once Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 You're being purposefully dense I think. Women have a multitude of ways to stop getting pregnant, both before and after the deed. Men can't "knock up as many women as they want" - get real. The piece of paper gives men their rights back. The right not to have a child. So, their only two options are to have an abortion, or raise a child alone? Don't be thick: Women: Female condom Diaphragm IUD The Pill Vag Rings Implants (implanon etc) Injections (depo provera etc) Last resort: abortion If you refuse the plethora of options available to you as a woman and the man has signed to say he's not going to provide for the kid: don't have sex. That's fair. What an incredibly rude and condescending post. How about he get snipped if he doesn't want to have kids. Link to post Share on other sites
Devil Inside Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 I think that the child support system is often misunderstood by both parties. I also work for a government agency that as one task collects and enforces the collection of child support. I have female clients that have told me..."I am going to take the kids away from their father so that he cannot see them and he will have to give me more child support." I ask for the motivation there, if it is because the father is an unfit parent and a response I have heard.."he is dating some new hoe and I want to hurt him by making him pay." Seen in this light it is definitely a threat. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the majority of men you are talking about are deadbeats, but often both parents are putting their needs above the needs of the child in this war to screw the other. Link to post Share on other sites
Tayla Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Adf- Thanks for your view point and commentary. Its respectable and worthy of consideration. "Fooled Once"- Thank you for validating that most custodial parents want the money as a form of punishment. Cripple them financially. Never have to use the money to support the dental , health or clothing. What a fine example! Hope the wallpaper is worth it! Sorry that I am not bitter about my x spouse or that I did support my kids and raise them as best I could. They did not go without. Well they did go without toothpaste once, but we used baking soda til I could get to the store Ohh and there was the time the storm came and we went without electric for 2 days! But so did the neighbors house,and they were married and had kids! Sure hope child welfare doesnt arrest them 17 years later for not providing electricity for their kids! Link to post Share on other sites
fooled once Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Adf- Thanks for your view point and commentary. Its respectable and worthy of consideration. "Fooled Once"- Thank you for validating that most custodial parents want the money as a form of punishment. Cripple them financially. Never have to use the money to support the dental , health or clothing. What a fine example! Hope the wallpaper is worth it! Sorry that I am not bitter about my x spouse or that I did support my kids and raise them as best I could. They did not go without. Well they did go without toothpaste once, but we used baking soda til I could get to the store Ohh and there was the time the storm came and we went without electric for 2 days! But so did the neighbors house,and they were married and had kids! Sure hope child welfare doesnt arrest them 17 years later for not providing electricity for their kids! For heaven's sake..... I was a custodial parent who got a measly $300 a month for 12+ years from my ex. *I* paid ALL medical, dental vision insurance for my son's entire life as a minor. I paid ALL of it -- extracurriculars, medical expenses, tuition, daycare, etc etc etc. My ex paid $300 a month - PERIOD. And it was LATE every single month. EVERY SINGLE MONTH. I had to hunt him down and repeatedly ask for the money. He rarely took his visitation, he never took our son on vacation, he never called our son during the week, etc. He was a crappy father and I SHOULD HAVE taken all I could get from him. His support, per the state guidelines, would have been $630 at a minimum, not including that I could have had it recalculated every 2 years. I didn't. I also took ALL the debt from the marriage. I agreed to all of it just so I could get him to sign the divorce papers. So don't you dare criticize me if I chose to wall paper my bathroom with his piddly $300 a month. That didn't cover squat. I went without for many years because I couldn't afford to do things FOR ME. I made sure my son had ALL that he needed, that he played sports, that he had clothes that fit, teeth that were taken care of, lunch money, etc. Many weeks, I only ate 1 meal a day because I couldn't afford to feed both of us. So back off. It wasn't until I after I remarried that I was more financially secure. It wasn't until after I remarried that I could finally pay off all the debts my ex and I BOTH accumulated. My H was a much better father to my son than his father any day of the week. My ex was more interested in beer than his child. My h was a noncustodial father to his kids and he paid c/s. He paid it on time every single month - directly to his ex. She definitely made sure if she could get it reevaluated, she took advantage of it. So I know what it is like from both ends of it. My ex was treated very well by me after the divorce, and he sure as heck didn't deserve it. Link to post Share on other sites
LucreziaBorgia Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 (edited) I think it is getting to the point where a contract needs to be introduced before the first sexual interaction, in which the couple agrees ahead of time what the plan of action is and gets the contract signed, notarized and legal. A 'pre-intercourse' contract, so to speak. If a man wants to protect himself, he needs to state in the contract that he does not want children, and that he and his partner will protect against pregnancy to the best of their abilities. If a man protects (and I mean really protects - does everything in his power to prevent pregnancy), and a woman protects adequately herself (following directions for birth control to the maximum), there is a near zero chance of pregnancy and both parties should be ok. However... There needs to be a clause in there that in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, the man will pay to the woman half of the medical costs of having an abortion. If the woman chooses to not have the abortion, then she can keep the money but waives her rights to child support, since she chose to have the child against the pre-determined and clear wishes of of the male partner. If the woman does not agree with any part of the contract, then they should part ways, period before even having that first sex. If a man does not want children, and a woman knows this from the beginning then she should probably not be with that person if she knows this and knows that she would not be able to go through with an abortion, or at the very least should shoulder the cost if she is going through with the pregnancy against his wishes. In both of my pregnancies, I gave my partner(s) the option to walk free with absolutely no financial or familial obligations, and I meant it. I chose the pregnancy, so I was willing to be 100% responsible for it. One of my babies lived and her father chose to stay and it worked out great. The other wanted no part of it, so I was perfectly happy letting him carry his happy ass off into the sunset while I raised the child I wanted without his money or help. The pregnancy did not go forward though, but I still would have stuck to my guns if it had. I guess that the bottom line is that the man needs choices too. Wish there were something like an IUD for men that would prevent conception, but would be easily reversed when and if he decided he wanted children. I'm not a big advocate of hormone based birth controls - they interfere too much with how our bodies are supposed to run - but a safe and reliable internally based barrier method for men? I'm all for it if it is possible. Edited October 25, 2009 by LucreziaBorgia Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 There already is a contract. It's called a marriage license Don't f*ck without one Link to post Share on other sites
tinktronik Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Child support is one of the very few things that can be completely disregarded at anytime during an 18 year period after the ink dries on the divorce decree. I do think both parents should be financially liable for their children to some extent but state enforced "child support" amounts to debtors prison, if it is not paid, on a judges personal whims. I have too many times seen men and women ordered to pay an amount far above their earnings based on "perceived earnings" [due to a sliding scale of pay] or "potential earnings" [based on some job that they had briefly in a very different time or economy] and they are NOT able to pay the amount and their lives are forever ruined. The idea that it is not child support enforcement that is part of the problem is ridiculous; I have personally heard CSP making threats, taunting "debtors" with prison and credit and seizure of their homes or assets or freedom, and it is taunting and berating intentionally. No other creditor could harass this way, refuse to work out a payment plan in loss of job and it takes months to even begin the process of getting the amount lowered. People who work the job are typically able to do it because they are embittered people who are there to get back at their own exs. I have also heard it from the other side where I had GFs who did not want CS and the CSP worker ran the spiel about sticking it to that man and were gonna get that scum-bag and just drove the relationship further from anything that would actually work in the interests of the child. I know a 22 year old who had a baby with a 16 year old boy with cerebral palsy. She let him play at daddy for a while and then ditched him. The court awarded her support [they said they HAD to do it]. Now, guess who is unable to pay their support? Duh, the 16 year old disabled KID. So his debt racks up collecting interest all the time mind you. I wonder how big it will get before they haul him off to jail, or he is functional enough to find work. The courts don't take into account that peoples lives and circumstances are different, they just are. I think in lots of relationships it is a "tool" used by an ex to manipulate and harass the non-custodial parent. My ex and I agreed no support from myself when he took primary custody of our children because I relinquished all marital assets, any alimony and all of his retirement benefits to him after being a SAHM for years and years and years with the agreement that I would have no financial obligation in order to do with my life what I had afforded him to do while we were married; build some kind of career. However, he moved all the way across the country. Now I pay upwards of $500 a month to travel to see the boys, none of which I am reimbursed, I have to support a home large enough to house my children during holidays and summers, even though I still have all the same expenses brought by a home large enough for them when they are not with me. I provide all of their clothing, even in his home, don't receive any toys or gifts during holidays or birthdays that Dad's home does, so any and all things in my home supportive to children is paid for solely by me. STILL I make sure he gets money from me beyond these things. And he has taken me to court 5 times for child support that is less than the amount I already give him. Just to F@#$ with me when he gets angry. The courts have denied CP every time but only because of a loophole in our children's state residency status. But I still had to appear in court all the way across the country. I still had the cost of hiring an attorney. I still had the stress of being in and out of court, having to figure out how the process worked, making sure he put all of his financial support down, not knowing how it would all fall in the end. The state should stay out of personal lives and personal finances. If a person wants to make babies with someone they should make sure that their choice is one in which it will benefit their children and that their partner is responsible enough to have what it takes to see it through. If not, oh, well you should have made a better choice. And yes this includes me. I think signing papers to support or not support a child is a great one. If a woman insists on having a baby she should go into it with liability of her finances and the father's willingness and there should be a moment when that man can walk away. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 The state should stay out of personal lives and personal finances. I agree with this wholeheartedly. It ain't ever gonna happen. The government supports itself by being in our personal lives and personal finances. Short of revolution, which isn't a bad idea now and again, we have to work with the system we have. Learn how to manipulate it to serve our interests. There are ways. Learn them Link to post Share on other sites
tinktronik Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I agree with this wholeheartedly. It ain't ever gonna happen. The government supports itself by being in our personal lives and personal finances. Short of revolution, which isn't a bad idea now and again, we have to work with the system we have. Learn how to manipulate it to serve our interests. There are ways. Learn them You got any ideas? Feel free to PM me. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 TBH, that's what I pay a lawyer for. A good one knows how to play the government's game and beat them at it. A good analogy is a line I remember from 'Enemy of the state'. You're small, insignificant, and hidden; they're large, cumbersome and obvious. Make that work for you Link to post Share on other sites
Author ADF Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 The state should stay out of our personal lives and personal finances. That's one of those small "l" libertarian throw-away lines that resonates with people of a certain political pursuasion. However, it doesn't work in the real world. Make whatever criticisms you like of the way child support is enforced--and there are some legitimate criticisms to be made--but the state does have an interest in seeing children don't end up deprived because their fathers abandoned them. If you want to see what happens when the state does nothing about child welfare, look at Brazil. There, mobs of homeless children run wild through the streets of major cities, robbing and stealing to surivive. Shop keepers periodically hire gangs of thugs to kill these kids to prevent shoplifting. It is tragic mess. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Spoken like a true government drone Link to post Share on other sites
Author ADF Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 Spoken like a true government drone Another cutesy throw-away line. But it doesn't really answer any of the points I made. Link to post Share on other sites
Enema Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Does that mean your national health care won't pay for it or you literally cannot purchase a vasectomy? I know my Oz friends love their national health care, for the most part, so am curious. If you are literally prevented from sterilizing yourself, that's deplorable, IMO. The national health care (medicare) offers partial coverage if you get a vasectomy but, none of the 3 doctor's I've tried would let me. A friend of mine is just finishing up his residency, so it shouldn't be long now. I have private health insurance so I'll be fully covered... side note: our public health care is pretty good. There's a 1.5% income tax levy to fund the program. You have to pay an additional 1% if you earn over $70,000 a year and still use medicare. So, after 70k it makes sense to switch to private cover. Link to post Share on other sites
KikiW Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Try contacting Planned Parenthood. My stepfather went there for the procedure. Link to post Share on other sites
2sure Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 My daughters dad. We never went to court regarding child support, so he never paid it. Eventually, I lost my health insurance and had to apply to a state program for my daughter. They would not make her eligible until it could be proved through the courts that her dad could/could not provide health insurance and support payments. So, off to court we went. That was years ago and he never did provide health insurance or anything that was not forced from his pocket through the state collection agency. And believe me, its minimum. I have to see him, so if I'm feeling sarcastic I tell him I'm using his child support to buy myself chapstick and gum. Link to post Share on other sites
Tayla Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Fooled once- Pardon for my delay in responding. Its clear from your response that you are every bit bitter and rightly so in your mindset. I stand by my decision though. Deal with it or don't. Neither of us agree with the other and that is life sometimes. Link to post Share on other sites
Dexter Morgan Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I used to work for a state agency that dealt with child support issues, among other things. I was always amazed at how many men would complain about women "threatening" to make them pay child support. Let's be clear: it is not the woman in question who says you have to pay child support. It is the STATE that says you have to pay child support. Paying child support is a legal duty, not a punishment. Now, if a woman doesn't go to court, no order to pay child support will be issued. Courts can't enforce the law if they aren't aware of a violation. But legally, a man is required to pay child support regardless of what the mother does or deosn't do. What is these guys' reasoning process? Should they be free to father children and stick the mothers with the bill? C'mon guys. Get serious. Or am I missing something? what you are missing is the notion that a majority of mothers, who WILL get custody if they want it, will not entertain the idea of 50/50 custody. Why? they want the child support money because they know the amount more than well takes care of the children's needs, and pays a portion of her own expenses. I pay my support gladly, but don't tell me they eat and buy clothes at the pricetag of $1,200 a month. Maybe if they were NFL football players, and even then. what would be the problem with the STATE mandating 50/50 custody? Can someone tell me what would be wrong with that? Link to post Share on other sites
lostsoulmate Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 No custodial parent is MANDATED to go to court for support, its optional and that is that. Unless you are on state funded programs for the kids - food stamps, healthcare...etc. In some states, child support is brought up without the custodial parent even knowing about it. It is not always optional.... Link to post Share on other sites
Tayla Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 In some states, child support is brought up without the custodial parent even knowing about it. It is not always optional.... Can you name the states in which such is true? Sorry but I think that is an inaccurate statement. It is only mandated when the parent/guardian applies for state funded programs that affect the household. My sister in law works for legal aid and even she questioned how a custodial parent WOULDNT be advised/informed of court ordered support or the proceedings to seek such ..... Link to post Share on other sites
Tayla Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Dexter, you are observant and more correct then most will agree too. THe issue sometimes is there are dead beat dads and on the other end of the spectrum is the non custodial parent. Because Society wants to make an example out of Dead beat dads, they deliberately make the ones court ordered to pay, to pay so at ludicrius amounts. And the biggest irony is the custodial parent can take that money and toss it out the window or go to nail and spa treatments if they so chose, because its THEIR compensation for being such a devout parent. I cringe that the purpose of support has no bearing or direct use for the child , the law needs to change and benefit directly the child. For the state to mandate and control a families budget by saying what the non custodial parent can afford is crossing a line. What the state should mandate is family time and make these folks responsible for what really matters in a childs life, the love of both adults who brought the child into the world. But there are times that isnt reasonable or feasible. Link to post Share on other sites
HarmonyHope Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) I pay my support gladly, but don't tell me they eat and buy clothes at the pricetag of $1,200 a month. Maybe if they were NFL football players, and even then. Are you insane or just completely obtuse? I pay $150/month for tuition for private school, $200/month for daycare, at least $700 for food and hygiene stuff (two kids) including school lunches. That's over $1000 right there. That doesn't include clothes, school uniforms, the utilities they use, school supplies, dance classes, swimming classes, fundraisers, and Heaven forbid - money to do activities with the kids, etc. Kids are expensive. Get a grip. (In case you're wondering, I only get HALF of what you pay and work my face off). Edited November 18, 2009 by HarmonyHope Link to post Share on other sites
2sure Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 People who have been non custodial parents for most of their children's lives have NO idea how much it costs to raise a child. NO IDEA. My ex pays the states minimum for CS, no health insurance, no tuition, no out of pocket medical expenses like braces, etc. I pay all of that. Once when my daughter and I returned from a trip abroad, he accused me of using his CP to go to europe. I told him if he could find a way for 2 people to go to europe on 12.00 a day including airfare he should get his own TV show. Link to post Share on other sites
Dexter Morgan Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Dexter, you are observant and more correct then most will agree too. THe issue sometimes is there are dead beat dads and on the other end of the spectrum is the non custodial parent. Because Society wants to make an example out of Dead beat dads, they deliberately make the ones court ordered to pay, to pay so at ludicrius amounts. dont get me wrong, if I thought all the money was going to my kids well being, I wouldn't have a problem with the amount. I want them taken care of. I take exception with the notion that if one parent wants money, that they can use the kids to get it. And I know that if the mother wants to be a custodial parent, and turns down 50/50 custody so she can get CS money, then if she refuses to agree to 50/50, she WILL get custody, unless as a father one can prove her to be unfit. And unfortunately, being an unscrupulous cheater isn't grounds for declaring one unfit(although it should be). Now I realize depending on circumstances that one parent might not be in a position to have custody. That is a different story. But if a father wants 50/50, and he is a loving father, why shouldn't he be granted it even if the mother fights it? Thats why I asked someone to explain to me what is wrong with 50/50 custody? Link to post Share on other sites
Dexter Morgan Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Are you insane or just completely obtuse? I pay $150/month for tuition for private school, $200/month for daycare, at least $700 for food and hygiene stuff (two kids) including school lunches. That's over $1000 right there. That doesn't include clothes, school uniforms, the utilities they use, school supplies, dance classes, swimming classes, fundraisers, and Heaven forbid - money to do activities with the kids, etc. Kids are expensive. Get a grip. (In case you're wondering, I only get HALF of what you pay and work my face off). then you needed a better lawyer. I pay half the school expenses(including school lunches & extra curricular costs), half of daycare, half of all uncovered medical bills for them, and I pay ALL the premiums for medical insurance for them. And putting them in private school is YOUR choice. the utilities they use only add about 5% to the costs you'd have to pay for just yourself since you need them anyway. and money to do activities with the kids? you mean a father is suppose to pay money so the mother can enjoy her time with the kids on her time? So no, I'm not insane at all:) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts