Step Talk

I don't think it was jumbled at all, you said it. You makeperfect sense and I respect the fact that you are on both sides of child support.

For the first two years of SD's life DH paid support to BM without complaint. Even though she was living with her parents and not paying rent, utilities, groceries or childcare and she proceeded to threaten to fight for more support while she spent the support she was receiving on a boob job and tanning membership. DH was never late and never missed a payment.

then we took her to court and wore her down until we had sd 50/50 and she agreed to no support.

We took her to court again a year ago after she exhibited dangerous and destructive behaviour and when the court agreed with our concerns and granted temp custody to DH they didn't see fit to order BM to pay any support! Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe a judge would allow a dad who behaved badly enough to be granted only supervised visitation to walk out of court without being odered to help out the mom in some way!

Well, court ended in May and she was ordered to pay support begining in June. We agreed to a lesser amount for the same reasons you stated.

This is the kicker to me though, all that time DH paid support and we had to deal with her complaints, all those times she called DH saying she didn't have the check yet so he couldn't see SD, only to call back after she checked the mail. And now, she's 6 months behind on child support! It's almost too ironic to be true.

sorry to ramble on, my point was to tell you I agree with you. Dad's do get screwed. It's sad that chances are if the judge is female she may favor mom because she is female or because she was heartbroken by a man once or her dad ran off. But then you could have a male judge who feels sorry for mom because it is the nature of men to want to protect women or his dad was a deadbeat and he takes it out on other dads.

And in the event the judge is not biased, you prob. still have a crazy lying X that will say whatever it takes to get their way, which will have nothing to do with what is best for the kids.

GOOD LUCK!

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and I---
I took the one less traveled by,
and that made all the difference. -Robert Frost-

lol u deserve a medal for the best level headed bm! You actually think sensible not being bitter even though u have every right too..that your ex not seeing his child.
well, we fought with cs for the sd with bm, lost. Still fighting with 3rdparty for the older sd with them... cs keep letting her respond to everything we claim ... itjust keeps going back and forth so far and im over it , i done my bast on friday night and had 32 pages to support everything. Now they say she can respond! where do the stop this , and make a decison!
sorry
But back to your points yes they take unnessary expenses. once when the kids were little the bm refused against it being reduced and used that the sd's had to buy bday pressys for their friends. On this crap it wasnt reduced!
ahhh i agree with all u said..... keep up the good work!

I see how hard it is because my DH pays his C/S. He, well I and we, pay it faithfully. Because it's court ordered. But seriously, does it take $700.00 a month to take care of a 14 year old girl? Especially when we, me and DH, have her every other weekend and every Wednesday night? I mean really now. Especially when her bills is half of ours?

I just don't get it because when she remarries she'll have her income, his, and my DH's. He may make 30 a hour, but the money we get is about 10. That's what I make.

So regardless, it seems that no matter how you have worked your ass off and no matter what you have put into your kids the judge can decide it isn't enough and take the rest away from you.

I see it because I'm on both sides. I could take my X back to court. I could get about 1200 a month versus the 400 I get. Yeah the extra money would be great!!!!!!!!!!! But why should HE have to give ME way more money than what it cost to raise our son? It's stupid. But if I pushed it, the judge would order it. Why? Does it really take more than 400 a month on either parties side to take care of a 13 year old kid? If I put in as much as he does it would take 800 a month to take care of my son. I mean, when I put it that way I feel like I'm robbing him.

And it really makes me wonder. If I think that way why doesn't every other BM? Why would you want to make the X, his new wife, new kids, etc, suffer just so you can have HIS money? It's not your money...........it's his.

That's what I want to scream to BM. When she calls us asking for DR visit money, or field trip, or school cloths. Hello, how much do you need to take care of this kid? We pay that and still do the extra's for your kid and both mine. It's ridiculous.

There seriously needs to be a good hard look at how the men get screwed just because they choose not to continue a marriage.

**PS....in DH and BM's DD, he agreed to give her 40% of his retirement. WTF? She keeps all of hers, and gets almost half of his. Why would the judge agree to this? She's worked just like he has. Again, I had the option to fight for some of my X's retirement. Of course I didn't. That's his...not mine. I have no right to what he's worked his whole life for nor would I ever sit here and say I do just because I ONCE had a marriage with him and a child. C'mon now.

*****off my soap box*********

I get child support and I get a goodly amount for 2 kids from 2 different fathers. One pays no attention to his child whatsoever and the other has EOW and holiday but only takes about half of all that a year and no extra no matter what - even when I was in the hospital he would not take his child. I think that the more time the parent paying child support spends with there child the less support they should have to pay. I accept that CS is supposed to attempt to keep the child in the lifestyle they would have enjoyed if the parents were together but come on. Did some of these BM's live the high life when they were together? As a couple, don't you all discuss "extras" before the cash is spent and not after? By extras I mean, new clothes - kids or adults aside from the necessary, new car, phones, bigger house, what to spend on gifts for friends/family, vacations, big ticket items, computers, etc.

In the last year alone, I have had to purchase new beds including bedding for 2 of my three children, new bikes for all three (2 were stolen and the other was too small), new glasses for all three kids at about $150 a pop, all there school supplies including 2 calculators that cost over $100 each for algebra and child support covers these things but I know if I was with my exhusband I would have had to justify the expense and prove it was needed or he would have said no way to any of it and that would be that until we both agreed whatever was needed.

I firmly believe that if more parents shared their kids all would be happier and the kids would not "suffer" so much from lack of stuff they need.

You started your sentence with,

"But seriously, does it take $700.00 a month to take care of a 14 year old girl? Especially when we, me and DH, have her every other weekend and every Wednesday night?"

My DH and his ex have the 3 girls 50-50 custody. Right down the middle. Plus, DH pays for:
*ALL education expenses (3 private school tuitions, all uniforms, school-related materials, etc)
*ALL activities for the girls & activity-related expenses
*ALL tutors
*ALL cell phones
*cars, insurances, gas, etc (when girls turn 16)
*ALL college & related expenses when girls turn 18
*Plus ALL medical and dental after the first $250 per child per year (yeah, right)
*plus lunch money, lunch fees, etc)

ARE YOU GETTING THE PICTURE HERE? Is your head spinning yet?

Now onto CS. You better sit down now.

Because DHs income is relatively high, CS was also set high. Now remeber what DH pays for and we have them 1/2 the time.

DH paid over $4200/month. (Now re-read your statement in the beginning, Jen- that's DOUBLE per girl!) I KNOW!

And for 18 months, our oldest SD lived with us FT, but the CS was NEVER REDUCED- but BM STILL CRIES POOR to the girls all the time.

And she doesn't work. She lives off the CS.

And she's remarried. And she had another kid.

Now tell me...How is that fair?

When oldest SD turned 18, it got reduced a mere $600, to over $3600. For 2 girls- at 50-50 time. That was 4 months ago.

Now she's crying poor again- BIG TIME. And she's threatening to sue him for more money- $400 more a month.

So how do you like THAT????

"If you have never been hated by a child, you have never been a parent."
-Bette Davis

My husband,and I and the new step dad support the little guy,She does not work,and your right the judge gave her the world.The step dad even gets to claim him at tax time EVERY YEAR because she said he lives with them 90% of the time ( THEY LIVE IN ANOTHER STATE) and the judge granted her that. WE pay 750.00 for ONE child. I told my husband look at it this way SHE will have to be responsible for his "savings account" because we won't be able to put anything away for him. and when hes 18 we have proof of what was paid,and if she has nothing for him thats between them? he tried to look at it that way but I know it still stings.

And I agree that BioDads get hosed by the courts. As for female judges being an issue, we have had both a male and female judge and I can assure you that the family law courts are equal opportunity employers for idiots regardless of gender.

I agree that in many cases CS appears to be insanely high for many. However, it costs a ton of money to raise children. Utilities are higher (lights left on, thermostats kicked to their highest of lowest setting because the kid is either hot or cold, as they get older extracurricular activity fees and associated equipment, food, etc ....). That is what CS is designed to cover. Half of the usual, customary and ancillary costs of rearing a kid. Both bioparents should pony up and cover half of the cost of raising the child.

What should not be covered IMHO is new cars for the X, vacations for the X, etc........ Yes the kids should have safe transportation to ride in and should have the benefit of the income of both parents but the lifestyle of the X should not be part of the CS equation. What amazes me is that there is no accountability for the CP to do the right thing with CS. The courts are very firm that the NCP cannot dictate what the CS money is spent on. The CP can do with the CS what they choose whether it is spent on the child or not. Hmmm? If CS is not spent directly on the child then it is alimony. And that is just wrong. IMHO.

In my SS's case, I have always been adamant that he have equitable access to his BD's resources whatever they may be. BD has four out of wedlock children by three different mothers, my SS is his oldest. He periodically attempts to lower his CS based on his non joint children. That is a load of crap. I do not care how many spawn he creates he should be equally responsible for all of them.

This is not 1950 and Ward and June were just TV characters. Adults should be able to live a life free of undo punishment for past marital decisions. Yes they should have to support their children. However, choosing to have a child should not be a life long burden and should not preclude both parents having a shot at a happy life.

Just my thoughts of course.

Good luck and best regards,

"To Thine Own Self Be True" William Shakesphere

That's wild! How could she possibly get all that for c/s?

When I divorced my ex, I got $450/mo. For two kids. Ex earned $65,000/yr, I earned $18,000/yr. Then he got fired-for stealing. And his father died, so he inherited the farm.

Long story short-H formed a corp., put new wife as President, and claimed $1000/mo as income. My c/s dropped to $99/mo. Oldest son chose to live with his father, so I had to pay $99/mo. So I received $0 help. While he took her on cruises, bought new cars, on and on.

Seems as tho the c/s system is so skewed, it completely needs reformatted.

For instance, could there not be average (different for regions) housing cost,(rent, utitlities), divided by the number of parties in the house-like, if BM is remarried, there is one Skid, that would be three people. So the NCP would pay 1/3 of that cost. And an average for groceries-again to be divided. And all the extras that are agreed upon divided equally between parents? So, if the average rent is say $600.00, utilities $225/mo. the average grocery bill for 3 is say $400.00-that would be $375.00/mo for NCP. Course my formula might not be work so well if there were 3 or 4 kids involved...

That would seem alot fairer to me. But probably wouldn't work anyway. But penalizing financially successful parents, and thereby rewarding BM's who refuse to work, is just insanity.