Log in is not necessary, everyone can post in this forum.

Posted by Susan

In Reply to: Re: YOU KNOW NOTHING posted by Sly Foxx

I wasnīt the one assuming anything. YOU assume that all non-custodial parents are deadbeats, like your guy, and as a result, you assume that all custodial parents must be "victims", who have to (God forbid) fully support the children they fully decided to have.

There are MANY reasons why a ncp would not want to pay child support, court order be damned. SOME men would PREFER jailtime to having to deal with their ex. MANY men are the "victims", whose partners have left them - taking their children along as bargaining chips.

In my husbandīs case, as I stated before, the cp LEFT him when the child was one month old. My husband did not immediately run out and get a court order to establish custody and force her to pay child support due to her absence in her childīs life. He just took care of his child, because THAT was his responsibility, no matter WHAT the mother was doing.

When she returned four months later to get her child - she immediately instituted a rule that until my husband COULD establish a CHILD SUPPORT order - he would not be "allowed" to see his son.

NOT ONLY was my husband forced to sue her just to get "visitation" (compared to having your child full-time, visitation is virtually meaningless), but he also had to "REIMBURSE" the mother for the whole time that HE was caring for his son, while she was off galavanting.

I ask you - IS THIS FAIR? IS THIS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD? NO! THIS is taking into consideration what is best for the mother, childīs relationship with his father be damned.

The mother and we did not always get along so well, as you can imagine. The mother used the court paperwork as HER opportunity to try to control my husband. She also used the court paperwork to manipulate my stepsonīs view of his father. SHE repeatedly said, in front of my stepson, what a "loser" my husband was - even though SHE left HIM. She also made certain to raise my stepson with the opinion that MONEY is the MOST important thing that my husband could provide for his son.

Later, when we moved out of state for a job transfer, the MONEY was no longer so important. NOW my husband - despite being current on child support and carrying full insurance, etc. - was a loser BECAUSE he wasnīt the one taking care of Ethan. SHE actually sent him to live with us for SEVEN MONTHS of the year that we lived in a different state. She received child support for her sonīs support the ENTIRE TIME, and did not concern herself with sending that money to us so that we would have it spend on her son.

SADLY FOR US, WE DID NOT rush out and expect a change in child support simply because she sent him to live with us, NOR did we rush out and attempt to modify the custody order, despite the fact that she clearly wasnīt living up to her end of the agreement. WE WERENīT trying to screw her over, like she did my husband, and we supported her son ENTIRELY while we waited for her to get her life back together.

We eventually MOVED BACK to our home state, when the State got involved and said that the child - BACK WITH HIS MOTHER - was acting out in school in such a way that the principal of his school said that he was going to contact the state, and they were going to take him from the mother, unless we moved back to our home state. NOTE THAT AT NO TIME DID THE COURT GIVE MY HUSBAND THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSUME CUSTODY OF HIS CHILD. What they DID do was force us to move back, causing my husbandīs income to be REDUCED, just so that we would be here to "monitor" the childīs well-being. The court would STILL not give custody to my husband, because they felt that the mother deserved "another chance".

We have lived back in our home state for three years now. Things had been going pretty well, until one day, when my stepson asked me about coming to pick him up one week. I said, of course I was coming to get him - didnīt I every week? He then informed me that he knew the only reason I came to get him each week was because I was "court ordered" to do so.

This boy is eight years old. HIS MOTHER has no business talking to him about "court orders" of any type - much less to discredit the amount of love or care that we have for him. What I told him was that A. His mother had no business talking to him about that type of thing. And B. THERE WAS NO COURT ORDER that forced ME to do anything for him. EVERYTHING I do for him is a direct response to the amount of love I have for him.

I also told him that there are MANY fathers who DO pay child support - but are STILL not there for their children. I told him that the MONEY is NOT the most important thing. What IS important is that HIS FATHER has been there for him since the beginning. He and his father are closer than ever since that day.

So, as you can see - there are MANY VALID reasons that a ncp would STRONGLY RESENT having to pay cs to someone who belittled them and made them feel as though they were NO MORE IMPORTANT to the child than would be a paycheck. THE CP is NOT automatically assumed to be the person who did nothing wrong.

Despite this, child support guidelines do NOT allow the court to take into consideration what occurred during the relationship of the parents. They ONLY consider the financial aspect, and not the emotional aspect of what a ncp offers his or her child.

IF A COURT ORDER includes the enforcement of child support, then it should ALSO include an enforcement of child visitation. MANY fathers state that they do not pay support because the mother refuses to allow him proper visitation with his child. WHAT PARENT wants to NEVER see their child, but jumps at the idea of handing over his paycheck to the mother who left him?

There are MANY aspects of child support and visitation. It is NEVER so cut and dried that the MOTHER is presumed to be the better parent, or that the father is expected to pay money to the mother who was able to CHOOSE BY HERSELF to give birth to that child.

You want it to be black and white - HE OWES YOU. But it is NEVER that cut and dried. OFTEN times the MOTHER has been directly responsible for the demise of the relationship in the first place, as in our situation. Do you think that my husband should be happy to just jump up and start sending his sonīs mother every month, now that she has decided that SHE wants her child?

I donīt think so.

Lastly, as I mentioned before - Tanya NEVER said the ncp was behind in support. SOME MEN actually DO pay support - you do know that, donīt you? SOME MEN, like my husband, are NOT in arrears in support. You do know that, donīt you?

There must be something WRONG with you to not understand what Iīm saying, right?

Because as LONG AS THE NCP is paying support for the child, the mother DOES NOT have the right to "treat herself" to extra little things with the child support money. And now weīre back to the beginning.

The very foundation of child support law is founded upon three main rules:

A. Child support is paid for the purpose of providing support to the child.

B. BOTH parents are equally responsible for supporting their child.

C. All reasonable circumstances should be considered when determining a cs amount.

Note that these foundations do NOT say that the father is responsible for supporting the child, and for providing little "treats" to the cp once in awhile.

As I mentioned before - there are MANY states who require that a cp keeps an accounting of their finances with regard to the cs income. MY STATE, in fact, has the strongest law in support of this - it allows for a court modification of the CUSTODY of the child, when it can be proven that the cp is improperly using cs funds.

What happens to all that child support money, anyway? Well, the mother of my stepson drives a new car, lives in a new house, and was able to afford to go on a cruise to Cozumel earlier this year with her live-in boyfriend. At the same time, she is calling us to tell us that the child support, for some reason, isnīt even enough to buy her son his school clothes. We have provided school clothes and school supplies every year since he has been old enough to go to school, on TOP of child support.

We, on the other hand, drive 120 miles every two weeks (at $3 per gallon) to get my husbandīs little boy for two days. She is not even required to provide half of the transportation cost. She refuses to even meet us halfway, although she never hesitates to contact me EVERY Sunday, to ask that we not bring him until LATER because she has "things" to do, and she wasnīt able to get these "things" done during the weekend while we had him. I budget our finances very carefully, just to be able to afford to drive him home again at the end of the weekend, much less be able to buy school clothes and school supplies for him. THAT is what CHILD SUPPORT is for.

But there are SO MANY MOTHERS who take advantage of the system. And there are SO MANY MOTHERS who spend the money on themselves - that FATHERS are SICK AND TIRED of supporting.

NOTE that I didnīt NOT say that every mother is like this. NOR did I "assume" anything about the father in Tanyaīs case. IF he is behind in child support payments, he is STILL only expected to catch up on those payments. The PAYMENTS are STILL intended for the child. The mother STILL has the obligation to support her child with that money. She in no way has any right to provide herself "treats" with that money.

The mother has the right to take the father to court and request that the court "reimburse" her for support she has provided in the fatherīs absence. But this is COMPLETELY SEPERATE from the court order. YOU KNOW THIS, as you stated that there are fathers who are paying a current support order, in ADDITION to reimbursement to the mother. The reimbursement is ON TOP of the support order. IF a father is CURRENT on support payments, there IS NO REIMBURSEMENT to the cp for financial support that they would be obligated to pay anyway.

Follow Ups:

• Re: YOU KNOW NOTHING - followup to Susan South Dakota 2008-05-21 15:13 (0)

Post a Followup