Who benefits from this?
In Nebraska, the state receives 7% of all the child support they collect. Last year they collected 43 million from the feds. Most states have a similar deal with the feds.

Who else benefits? Groups like The National Organization for Women who always portray men as dead beat dads. They will add this guy to their statistics as another guy who doesn't care about his kids and that's why women should always get custody list.

Who else benefits? Potentially lawyers who will get paid for taking this guy back to court to prove he is dodging his child support obligations.

The government benefits, as they have another deadbeat on their hands, who they are going to hold accountable. Yes siree!

Who loses? This man and other men, but in the "family courts" most men are second or third class citizens at best. Men really have no special interest group to protect them like women do.

Who else loses? The kids, who also have no special interest group protecting them.

It's supposed to be the kids who benefit. It depends on whether the court think he's purposely underemployed. It doesn't mention his level of education but fixing jetskiis sounds kind of lame to me. $1100 for 2 kids isn't a huge amount of support. The idea is to try to keep their lives stable if possible.

LS, I can guarantee you that tossing their dad in debtor's prison (where he has no hope of being able to make any kind of child support payment, and the arrears will simply accrue unbounded) will destabilize the hell out of those kids' lives. But that isn't what it's about. It's about getting more federal money from the state, and about politicians being able to thump their chests and say "we nabbed another deadbeat dad!" I went through the family court mill as a child. I can assure you that "the best interest of the child" is the absolute last thing anyone in that system gives a tinker's damn about.

Don't forget, the guy works in real estate in Florida. And Florida is one of the "fraud five" states that account for something like 90% of all of the mortgage defaults in the nation over the past year. The real estate market there is deader than a cup of yogurt accidentally left out of the fridge for a week. His only short-term alternative is to move, but the court may not allow him to leave the state, and if he does, he probably loses his vistation rights.

Yes, stable lives and if wishes were horses beggars would be riding through town.

Imputed income/underemployed is yet another "road to hell is paved with good intentions" law. Yes there are jerks out there who lie etc. and then there is just plain ol reality where its tough to get a good paying job and that no, the market isn't coming back anytime soon. If the parents were still together, what would be happening right now? The family would be tightening their belts.

Why is it that the kids are entitled to do better, i.e., no change in their living circumstances, after a divorce than during marriage? If the parents are married, the kids will prosper or not depending on the parents' fortunes. After divorce, the state offers kids (and, almost always, their mothers) a minimum guarantee -- upon threat of sending a parent (virtually always a father) to jail.

Looks like women are being bribed by the divorce system to end their marriages if things get a little rough, doesn't it?

I have great respect for those women who do respect their marriage vows in the face of these incentives for familial destruction and male enslavement.

It's supposed to be the kids who benefit. It depends on whether the court think he's purposely underemployed. It doesn't mention his level of education but fixing jetskiis sounds kind of lame to me. $1100 for 2 kids isn't a huge amount of support. The idea is to try to keep their lives stable if possible.

Posted by: lovelysoul at September 1, 2009 10:39 AM
=================
Lovely soul- you seemed to have automatically fallen into the default position that the guy is purposely being "underemployed." And $1100 "isn't a huge amount of support," Until you're the one paying it. Or you see your support money being spent at the bars on manicures and pedicures etc...

"Fixing jet skiis sounds kind of lame to me."
Have you seen the natioanl unemployment rates? Something tells me if there was a downturn or shortage in the work you do, you might actaully be thankful to have a job.

Ask yourself if you would like to be treated in this manner. My guess is that you wouldn't. It's okay to dismiss things that are happening to other people as long as it's not happening to you.

In China and in Arabic countries the man gets the children. Again not fair. That's why we should practice equality.

For a real education on what Amy only touched on in this article- go to glennsacks.com.

LS, there's one other point to make that isn't clear in the bit that Amy quoted: they have shared custody! The kids live with him half of the time! So, given that he presumably pays half of the support costs directly when the kids are with him, why does he also have to subsidize his ex's half?

LS, I know this conversation has happened before, and ya' prolly know what I am going to say, but for a moment, let's put aside the "it should be this way" and look only at the numbers.

If the parents have a situation where they have 1/2 time, and pay halfsies on the support as well, what SHOULD happen if one loses their job? Notice that GENDER isn't in the equation. The modification should be made depending on market conditions and when a new job may be had. The overall amount has to fall, and a LOT of things can go bad when this happens. It isn't a god situation.

But how is it that the court can decide to force something that doesn't actually exist, under pain of jailtime? Telling one parent or the other that there is no excuse for them not to simply walk in and get a new job tomorrow is Ludicrous. WHO is able to do that? I've known IT people who were laid off for a year, and were doing every odd job available to them to make ends meet. IF a laid off person is divorced and wants to see their kids ever, they can hardly move to the other side of the country for work. I know it happens, but that is not optimal for anyone, especially NOT the kids in whose name all this is happening.

You are nocticing that I have still not put gender in this, right? The amount paid in support is relative to what the parents make in their jobs. If they both don't make very much, then the support isn't very much. How would it be any different?

Where it stops being fair is when one gender or the other is favored for other reasons. And ODDLY our current system has the perverse effect of taking away a womans' power to be a strong independant agent in her life and her kids.

IFF this guy is put in jail because he can't keep up with unreasonable payments, the house of cards collapses.

Since he is paying her child support, obviously she isn't making a similar amount of money, even though they live 50/50 with each parent. There could be any number of reasons for that. But it puts her at a tremendous disadvantage if the guy loses his ability to pay. Having the government come down with a ton of laws doesn't change that simple fact.

IF she was a single mother and there was no guy around, what would she have done? This is the importance of independant agency. She would take it on herself to do whatever needs doing to make it work.

If both people are treated like they have independant agency, then they do their utmost to make things better. Having the government bludgeon one parent because of a change in fortune, doesn't do either one a favor. For one, the life can be wrecked, for the other life isn't fair because they were TOLD they would always have this amount of money, and they planned accordingly.

This system hurts everyone...

I don't disagree with you guys, it's just my gut instinct about that particular case. I live in FL and have lots of friends who are realtors, so I know they're hurting. Many are taking other jobs, but still the ones who really hustle are doing ok. FL also attracts a lot of loafers - guys who like to do things like work on jetskiis so they can hang out by the water and drink beer with their buddies all day while they "tinker". That may not be true of this guy, but it seems to me he could find a better-paying job than that, even waiting tables or bartending, and the court must've agreed.

Yep, until it happens to you personally, people tend to be flippant about it.

I wrote two books about it, but I finally gave up bitching and moved on. What the hell, one more time Rant=on
The family court in Houston cost me my life savings, and almost my life. All fuckers. Pig fuckers. Best interest of my child? That's a laugh. My ex wife, a (former) Physician Assistant, convicted of multiple felonies, now serving multiple prison sentences, was always sharing custody with me, until she couldn't stay out of jail long enough to meet the requirements. Has owed me child support of $150 a month since March 2002, and has never made one payment. Not much, but gee it seems like she owes me about $14k. Now that she's out of jail and in prison since last fall, I don't figure I'll get the money. But a good price to pay to have her out of my life, and my son's life.

I wrote the books, not too bad, to show what the family court did in the case of serious drug use/abuse/manufacture of meth. That shit is dangerous. But when you have a woman who is tweaking in court, on felony probation for faking narcotic scripts for herself, peeing dirty in the court tests AND using a masking agent in her urine tests, you'd think the court would say "hey, maybe not a good mother". And by the way, this was happening back during the Andrea Yates baby drowning fiasco in Houston.

Even though the court stopped her receiving money from me for temporary support, I was ordered to keep her on my insurance. She wrecked a Lexus, pocketed the $4500 insurance check then let the car get repo'd, used my health insurance (I worked for Microsoft and had badass health insurance) to go to pill farms and sell all kinds of meds on the streets, but none of this made any difference to the family court.

I'll say this, family court, at least in Texas, is so much shit. There is no common sense. I finally got the judge to stop her shared custody when I showed him a videotape, taken by a private investigator that I hired, of my ex's five year old son sucking the dick and balls of my ex's retarded brother, in the middle of the street in front of the condo I had moved her into in Bellaire, TX.

Life is better now, but no one will ever convince me that a family court anywhere really looks at any issue that is going on in the actual case. The mother should be given custody, and the man should learn to take it in the ass.

Rant=Off

OK, I feel better.

And so it does not surprise me in the least that the judge just says 'the guy is not working hard enough, keep paying the 1100 bucks, even though he only makes 1500 bucks a month.'

Not to offend any attorneys here in Amy's blog, but a good start would be to kill all the attorneys (including the judges, which are by default attorneys as well). According to Dennis Miller, we probably wouldn't get in trouble for it, because we would no longer be able to hire adequate representation to defend us on the murder charges.

Sterling- Just ordered your book off half.com.

I had seen it once before and wanted to order it. What a story.

I hope your son is doing well.

thanks David M. Actually, he is the bomb. Well as much as he can be for a 9 year old...

LS, the numbers don't add up. Let's say the guy really hustles and takes a job waiting tables five nights a week. Figure it's six hours a night at $9 per hour at an average restraunt. (He isn't going to get hired at a high-end restraunt without any experience.)

That's 120 hours a month, or $1080 on top of his $1500 per month income from the jet ski repair job. So he's pulling down $2580 per month. But wait, he has the kids two weeks a month! When is he going to be home to take care of him? Since he can't hire a nanny or a babysitter at less than $9 per hour, that makes it cost ineffective for him to work the two weeks that he has the children. So that cuts the restraunt income in half.

So we're down to, let's make it an even $2000 per month. Now, he has to pay $1100 of that in support. Plus, he still has to pay income taxes on that $1100. Since he is paying support, he is legally not the custodial parent, so he's paying single rates on his income tax with no deductions. Figure his marginal tax rate is 15%, so he's getting $300 in income tax withheld, plus Medicare and FICA. His take-home pay is about $1600 per month, out of which he has to pay the $1100, so he's left with $500 per month. Out of that, he has to pay rent and feed the kids. Oops -- rent on a two-bedroom apartment in Florida (if you can find one that takes children) is running $700 per month. He's still got to buy groceries for the kids the two weeks he has them, and if he's frugal and stays up all night clipping coupons, maybe he can get that done for $75 per week. So just with those two things along, he's got $850 per month in expenses that he's got to pay out of $500 income. And that's before spending a single penny on his own welfare.

So at this point, he's falling further and further in the red every month. He runs up credit cards, sells whatever assets he has, borrows against his retirement (assuming that his ex wasn't given claim to it in the divorce). And don't forget, he's having to pay that lawyer $120 per hour to defend him against the state. It won't be long before the credit cards are maxed out, all savings and assets are tapped. And he's working his ass off. He only gets a few hours of sleep per night; there's no time for personal maintenance. He doesn't have time to go out and pound the pavement to find a better job. (You know the old saying that looking for a job is a full-time job?) He can't move to find a better job, and school/training is out of the question from both a time and money standpoint.

Now the creditors are calling, and he misses or shorts a support payment because he just doesn't have it. Here comes the state! They throw him in jail, he loses both jobs, he can't afford a lawyer, and he loses all access to the kids. Meanwhile, he misses more CS payments because he has no job. Arrearages accrue, and the state applies interest, penalties, and interest on the penalties. He obviously can't afford the $120 per hour lawyer anymore, and there is no right to have a public defender in a civil case. After a year in jail, the back payments with interest and penalties have racked up to perhaps $30,000.

That's the real problem here. Once that ball starts rolling, it rapidly precludes all possible courses of action that one might take to get out of the situation.

So now what do you tell this guy?

see, cousinD [heh my D stands for that too...] You, and Sterling, and me and many others have stories like this... it's just that they seem SO outrageous, so opposite of common sense, that either people don't believe, or they think the situations are outliers.

Sadly many people either live them, or know of them directly, but who studies them? Who can come up with figures? I don't go by Glen's site very much, it's just a reminder I can't get away from.

I'd tell him to get a gun, I'm sorry but from where I sit society has reached that point where the only recorse is a complete reset after a few yrs of chaos and mayhem.

It happens to every society sooner or later.

Perhaps we'll be lucky enough that we can rebuild afterwords, but given we've damn near reach critical mass on the lazy, inept, willfully ignorant, and assholes who refuse to contribute to the continuation of society(a group I've recently joined) I really dont see a way to turn this death spiral around.

There is no great shame in this, as I said it happens to every society, it happens faster in more advanced societyies and as ours is the most advanced in history it makes sense that we'd crash and burn that much faster

Sorry, Cousin Dave, but the courts are run by lawyers and their servants, few of whom took math classes--too hard, after all. And so your arguments using math are a monkey's gibberish to them.

Rather than compute things, they simply ask vauge, high-minded questions like "what is in the best interests of the child..?".

The beatific feeling of warmth that spreads throughout their body as they say this assures them that they are not only wise, but good too!

In the defense of courts, they have to process a lot of nonsense foisted on them by people unable or unwilling to manage their own lives. Application of very broad rules without much thought to particular cases is a necessity just to manage the workload. The people involved in managing the court's daily load of human misery, almost as a defensive reflex, convince themselves that the people getting the shaft are somehow to blame. By blaming (scapegoating, really) one party to the mess, it allows us all to participate in whatever asinine scheme is cooked up to solve it.

In this case, we (via the courts) say to a guy who cannot make money like he used to, "Make more money...or else!", as if a simple shout and threat is the solution. I really wish it was that simple for people to earn more money. It isn't.

But hey, if we simply tell the guy to make more money, the issue is resolved! The problem is not resolved, mind you, but the issue is. See how that works? Now we can get down to punishing the "bad" party for failing to immediately implement our culture's well-reasoned solution.

And when we claim it is for the children, that makes our cause holy, don't you know?

D's and lujlp and others,

I wrote the book, well the original, from my journal, as I thought I was going insane. And I wanted documentation to keep my sanity. And as it turns out, what happened to me was so normal (from the standpoint of divorce/child custody issue), when I get email feedback or facebook contact or reviews on Amazon, people are not surprised at all about the divorce and the complete destruction of my finances, and my position as a guilty, second class citizen in the family courts. Business as usual.

And again, I try to not bitch about it, it's long over. Ex is doing hard time in a Texas Prison for at least five more years. I stopped my exciting and successful career as an IT Architect, and work as a Systems Administrator back at my University Alma Mater. This allows me to take care of my son, and I'm young enough to go back and make more money in 10 years when he's grown; I have to take responsibility that my ex spouse didn't take.

Choice between marriage and bullet in the head? Easy choice for me, make it a high caliber rifle. And it kills me that gays want to get married. I'm all for that, by the way. Let them share in the 'sanctity of marriage'. Suckers!!!!!

But I digress, its bath time. I'm about as qualified to raise a kid from infancy to young adulthood as a narcoleptic ferret, but so far so good.

I do think $1,100 is a huge amount of support for two kids when you have them 50% of the time. Like most child support arrangements, it's unspoken intent is largely to transfer wealth from men to women. Stamp the "Best Interest of the Child" slogan on it, and you automatically discredit anyone who takes issue with it.

What can a guy do? Very little in this sad case. The only thing to do is really own the deadbeat dad title and push things with the woman until she accepts it, and also leave the state and kids behind. Is that in the "best interests of the child?" No, but since when does a bitter woman or a money grubbing lawyer have that in mind? The ex wife could have petitioned for the amount to be reset so he would have a chance, but the feminazis preach that men should be put down and kept down whenever opportunity presents itself. It's a hard time in America to be a dad.
Maybe that's why most black men don't even pretend to be fathers to their children. With 75% of all black children in a single parent home, this statistic is unassailable proof that at least one segment of society has given up on the child support system (but not welfare).

Amy,

I have never shared my experience with you or the blogosphere, I will keep this as brief as possible.

After my divorce sixteen years ago the Pomona Superior Court assessed me $2,250 per month in child support and alimony, we have six children. My children spent almost every weekend with me, and we gathered during the week for dinner.

I was left with $800 a month to live on, so I ended up living in a garage, which really wasn’t a bad experience.

A short year later I was granted custody of my children, and to this day I have not received a penny in child support.

Now have a man try this and we go to jail, just a bit unfair in my opinion.

Thanks for the response, Spartee. Having seen the system from the inside as a child, I have no problem dismissing that "best interest of the child" thing as a pretense that people in the system use for whatever the heck it is that they want to do. And yes, there are an awful lot of them who think they can make flowers bloom in January simply by issuing a "make it so" decree.

I think that part of the problem is that the adversarial model, which we've found necessary in criminal and tort law, doesn't work in family law. Other than the spouses and children, nearly everyone involved in the system has a vested financial interest in making the process as adversarial as possible, and that exacerbates whatever problems exist between the spouses. I saw this happen to my parents. I really think they could have reached an amiable resolution if they had been left to their own devices. But there were too many people whispering in their ears, and that created repercussions that took my mother, father, brother and I decades to resolve. It all became personal, and we all suffered for it.

The legal profession, like politics, is attractive to petty people who enjoy pushing others around and avenging personal grievances. And family law is where most of that bottom 10th percentile winds up. It's chock loaded with people who have vendettas against the opposite sex, or against their own sex. There's also, from what I've seen, a lot of mixing of the professional and personal. I knew a divorce lawyer in Florida who only represented women, and he was upfront about the fact that he did it to get laid; he used to brag about the clients he'd had sex with. Family law is chock loaded with abuses, injustices, and ethical lapses that would not be tolerated in any other branch of law. It was fertile ground for the gender feminists to invade, and they have done so very effectively.

I just received an email from a casual friend who I've known for years. He is a 54 year old Jewish man who always brought in a good income. Due to problems in his job market, his income has decreased drastically. He is behind on his child support from May of this year to the tune of $12,000 and faces jail if he cannot come up with it by Sept 16. I am a single mother of three and have my issues with my ex and support, but I don't see how this man who has been a great father and a great support going to jail would benefit his kid, yes, one child that he pays close to $4000 a month for. I don't even get half of that for three kids. Something is very wrong with the system.

Despite my ex truly being a horrendous husband and father I have always tried to work with him when it comes to his children. He pays his support directly to me and not through the court so if he was behind, I'd have to report him. I don't know the details here, but it would seem to me that my friend's ex is pushing it in the court in a way to send him to jail. How is that fair?
As a woman I do acknowledge that while I have more responsibility when it comes to my children and I have sacrificed much more than my ex ever has, the system is not usually fair to men. I know many men who are great fathers. They put their kids first in all of the ways that are important despite a divorce and when there is a problem, the ex either witholds the kid or demands unreasonable things knowing that she will be favored in court. I hate to see that because those women are hurting the kids in the long run. I'm not patting myself on the back, but I've sucked up a lot of bullshit with my ex because I hate the thought of dragging the kids through court battles. When will parents get that their wars only do more damage to their kids?

I have simple solution (that likely won't be implemented).

We have all sorts of calculations on the cost of raising a child. This website is an example:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/childcostcalc.html

According to this website (whose figures I'm using so that we can look at the math), it takes 199,628 to raise a child to 18 for a middle income family. That works out to about $924 per month total. In a two parent family, each parent should only have to pay half, which leaves about $462 per child per parent. That should be the default child support for any child no matter how much the parents income is.

Additional child support should only be provided if there is a severe documented reason why the additional funds are needed (a child is very ill for example) and then the cost would be split in half. If there is joint 50/50 custody, no child support for anyone.

At no time could child support leave the non-custodial parent with less to live on than 130% of the poverty line. If Dad lost his job while the parents were still married, then everyone would be required to cut back. That shouldn't change with divorce.

If the custodial parent doesn't want little Jimmy dressed in hand me downs, s/he can supplement the extra. If the custodial parent can't afford to get Sally a cell phone, let Sally get a job to pay for it.

No kid is guaranteed a college education in this world and the child of divorce should only have one if he/she can come to an agreement with their parents or pay for it him/herself, just like any other kid.

The purpose of child support is to ensure that the child has food, clothing, shelter, and basic medical care. If we standardize the calculations we take away much of the 'I'm going to pump him for all that he is worth' crap. That doesn't do any good for anyone.

-Julie

Julie, your calculations won't work in many cases. My ex seems to feel that his child support is like me hitting the lottery despite the fact that he pays nothing more than what he is legally required to pay. We made a choice together that I gave up school and work so that I could stay home with our kids. It wasn't just the belief that kids would do better with a stay at home mom, but also because financially it was not worth paying for childcare for what I would have earned at that time. My husband advanced in his career, paid into a pension and a 401K and became more valuable as our marriage went on. My value was as a mom, which I'm proud of, but not really a marketable skill. When we divorced due to his abuse, he had assets. I had nothing due to decisions we had made together early on in the marriage and yes I am acknowledging that it was a big mistake that I made when I married and had kids too young, but it was his mistake as well.
When I left, I asked for nothing. I just wanted out. I had a part time job that enabled me to make some money and a schedule around my children's school schedule. He refused to help out the few hours I could not accomodate around my children by either watching them or helping with the cost of a sitter. He began a pattern of harassment designed to embarrass me at work in the hopes that if I failed financially I'd be forced to get back with him. I have spent years struggling financially while trying to raise my children. He gets up, goes to work and never has to worry about taking kids to school, a sitter, an activity, etc. He comes and goes as he pleases whether its work or pleasure.
I moved many times to keep my children from having to leave their friends and schools though eventually I had to move to a new town. Rent is ridiculously high and I cannot afford to buy. He lives in a two bedroom apartment in a few towns away with his latest girlfriend in a house that his parents owned as a rental property. He pays no rent and does not worry about having to maintain a residence in their school district. My three teenage children of different genders share a room at his home. I slept on a pull out when I could only afford a two bedroom so that that my sons and daughter could have privacy. He has been to Brazil, Peru, Aruba, Mexico and gone to Mardi Gras every year. He has taken cruises and traveled around the United States yet every year when it is time for his two weeks with his kids, he cannot afford to take time from work or a vacation.
He had a major financial head start on me between career advancement and paying into a pension system. He will be retiring soon with a nice fat pension. Believe me when I say that my children and I do not have many of the luxury items that many people consider necessities and I do not ask him to foot the bill for anything unreasonable. My son asked him recently in a store if he could buy a t-shirt and my daughter needed underwear. He refused to buy both, (the grand total was less than $25) and told them he pays me support and to ask me.
Times have changed and women have educations and careers. Yes, it was my choice to put that on hold when I became pregnant. But it was a choice we made as a couple that has hurt me and benefited him. We tried mediation as opposed to divorce lawyers, but this man thought he had no financial responsibility for anything. The mediator actually told him that he should take my deal and run, but he refused. Eventually the judge awarded me more than I had asked for based on our circumstances and probably because of my ex's arrogance.
If my ex loses his job there's nothing I can cut back. I pay more than my fair share, actually more than he does, but I can't go to my landlord and tell her that I can't pay just as I can't explain to the grocery store clerk that my ex can't contribute right now so can she please ring up my groceries at half the price.
Despite his rent free existence and his frequent traveling, there have been times he has been late, bounced my check, or just refused to pay me. I have always tried to work it out with him as opposed to going to court and having him thrown in jail. So while I acknowledge that the system is not always fair to men, I also say that each case needs to be looked at on an individual basis. I am not one of the women with my hand out trying to punish men. I hate that I even need to take money from him, but they are his kids too. He doesn't want custody or even visitation, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't contribute financially. I am aware that there are women who hit the man's wallet in an attempt to punish, but I am not one of them, and just as a blanket formula of support isn't always fair to men, it also isn't always fair to women. Overall, the system does favor women, but for every story like my friend or the one Amy blogged about, there are just as many about a single mother like myself who is financially responsible and is not getting rich off of support or alimony.

@Kristin,

Your situation sucks, and I'm not trying to imply that you are pumping the system for money, only that both parents should share an equal financial burden for the kids. Because you detailed your experience, I'm going to respond to it, but only as an example. I have no intention to attack you (or anyone) personally.

My husband advanced in his career, paid into a pension and a 401K and became more valuable as our marriage went on. My value was as a mom, which I'm proud of, but not really a marketable skill. When we divorced due to his abuse, he had assets. I had nothing due to decisions we had made together early on in the marriage

In this type of situation, distribution of assets should be taken up in the divorce settlement. Most (if not all, I'm no lawyer) states allow for distribution of assets to the non-working spouse from the marital holdings. You should have gotten a good portion of that pension, 401k, the savings, as well as possibly the funding of you going to school so that you could earn a living. What would a stay at home parent do in case their wage earning spouse died? S/he would pick up and find a way to keep going. Any lack of wealth due to marital decisions should be taken up as an alimony issue, not as a child support issue.

...but for every story like my friend or the one Amy blogged about, there are just as many about a single mother like myself who is financially responsible and is not getting rich off of support or alimony.

I understand not all women are getting rich off of alimony, I suspect most aren't. However the burden of creating a child took two people equally, the support of that child should be undertaken equally as well. It sounds like your ex-husband has things easier and is frankly a nimrod. However, child support isn't a punitive effort. The goal of it is to get both parties to pay for their half of the support of the children. That should be a joint operation. Most people here agree that getting the husband to pay based upon the previous life the children had is unreasonable, especially when what was supporting one household now has to support two. If we don't have a centralized calculation, how are we to ensure that no one is being bilked financially?

-Julie

Julie, I don't have a problem with you commenting on my situation and I'm sure I'll have a few critics. My point was that there are reasons for not using blanket formulas of half. I did not ask for alimony and I was not awarded it. Child support is not meant to be punitive and I would never expect it to be just as I don't feel that visitation should be based on child support.
My point is that their are sometimes financial disparities that mean an equal share is not always reasonable. While I may have been entitled to share in assets, as you stated, I'd have to cash mine in while building myself up in school or a workforce, something he did not have to do and did not do which would also mean that he enjoys his pension while I neeeded it to live, though I did not take his pension either. Decisions we made as a couple starting out worked out favorably for him and not for me. Life isn't always fair and I accept that. But I took financial hits that were different from him and could not be measured in a standard child support formula. He does not have to maintain a home in their school district or even provide separate bedrooms for them. He does not have to base a work schedule or any schedule around childcare. Those are things that are important and they affect my quality of life as well as my ability to provide for my children.
I would love to get a studio or a one bedroom apartment in an area where the schools don't matter. I would love to roll out of bed and make a schedule that is based on only my convenience and I would love to be able to apply for positions in my company based on only what kind of schedule works for me and nobody else. I have custody of three children and cannot always do these things. He can, so while he can name a dollar amount that he pays, I pay a dollar amount as well as other variables that cannot always be measured on a regular basis.

While I may have been entitled to share in assets, as you stated, I'd have to cash mine in while building myself up in school or a workforce, something he did not have to do and did not do which would also mean that he enjoys his pension while I neeeded it to live

You would be given assets that you could have used as you saw fit. You could have used them to further your education, to stay at home for a few more years, or to buy an RV and live in it rent free. However, I still insist that distribution of assets should be part of the divorce settlement, not the child support settlement. You not taking what was due to you shouldn't play into how much your ex pays in child support.

...he can name a dollar amount that he pays, I pay a dollar amount as well as other variables that cannot always be measured on a regular basis.

And while he pays that money, you get to decide how it is spent on a month to month basis. My point is that we can go back and forth about what is fair and not fair, who has more money and why. By what standard should courts decide the required child support, if not by the cost it takes an average family to raise a child and to keep everyone above the poverty line? Taking on a 'case by case basis' creates an environment subject to significant abuse by both sides. There will never be a perfect formula, however there can be one that would be fair to most people. What do you think should be done? (not at all sarcastic, an honest question).

-Julie

While I think it would be difficult to do case by case basis, I think in the long term it would be beneficial. You are correct when you say my sharing of assets could be used however I want, but the point missed is that he has his career, he had his promotions. He had a 15 year head start and knows his pension is for his enjoyment. My options were different. And again, I'm not saying that child support should be punitive but as the custodial parent, I do have to take on a bigger financial burden. Our burden is not equal,our income potential is not equal, and unfortunately that is just a fact of life. My most important role in life is as a mother and it is 24/7. When my daughter had her appendix removed, I was the one taking time off from work to be there. I would never consider not being there, but again, it affected my work, not his. When my son was hit by a car riding his bike, again, I was the one calling in to work to be able to care for him, not my ex. My sick time at work as well as vacation time is usually eaten up by my children's sick days from school or even the various teacher conferences, etc. His aren't. Those are things that you really cannot put a monetary amount on, but they do affect in a financial way. And I'm not saying there are no fathers who aren't there and who do not take time off for their children.
It is just again me saying that blanket formulas are not always going to be the answer. Should I charge hourly for every emergency that my children need me that takes me away from work or school? Should I expect to be reimbursed because my gas mileage went up because my son needed to go to tutoring or extra help? These are just some of the variables that are possible and there are many more that cannot always be predicted.
My friend was paying $4000 monthly for one child. While he earned a great deal more than my ex, it seems a little excessive especially when his job is in trouble and his income changed. I would not compare his being behind on support as I would another man I know who pays $200 monthly and refuses to pay because he gets satisfaction watching his ex struggle. That is where I say a blanket formula does not work. It would be nice if there were more parents who didn't use support as a means to punish whether its the mother holding the kids or the father holding the payment, but it goes on every day and both sides are guilty.
While times have changed, the laws are there because at one time, mothers were typically the care givers and fathers the financial providers. That is not always the case anymore which is why I acknowledge that the system is not always fair to men. It is also why I think that instead of a blanket formula, people who cannot work it out on their own should expect a court to look at their case in terms that are larger than who is the man and who is the woman. Was one parent the primary care giver? Did one partner stay home to support the other's career while raising children? Did both work and now one isn't carrying the weight? Those are some of the things that need to be looked at.

I have a friend who is a physician. He is going back for a reduction in child support now, after 4 years, because his income, as a pathologist at a local hospital has dropped in the econonomy. His ex has primary custody, a nice house, and alimony, but he doesn't mind that. He is Asian and believes, rightfully so, that it is in his children's best interest to have a SAHM. She makes sure their homeowrk is done, violin and piano lessons completed, and both are destined to Ivy league schools. His was probably the ideal model for how these child support situations were designed for the best outcome. The idea, however mislead, was that neither home should be "lesser" than the other. Just because the mom stayed at home and couldn't earn as much as the husband didn't mean the kids shoud live in hovel at her house and a mansion at his. This isn't always fairly or equally applied, but the idea behind it was correct, in my view.

How much longer before this imputed income nonsense gets applied to taxation as well. The government may well say "we believe you are working less because you don't like paying high taxes. So we are going to levy a tax assessment based on what we think you are capable of earning".

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me at all if something like this ended up happening given the financial pressures many governments are under.

Thank God someone was looking out for the kids. They have succeeded in paving a road to hell for all of us.

lovelysoul,

Are you a complete MORON???? You said above that $1,100 was not "a huge amount of support." Are you rich or something? Yeah, $1,100 is not alot of you are making 10,000 a month! $1,100 is a house payment. They should make all of the judges that are assigning this CS debt pay it for a few months and see how much money it really is!

Also, you forget that all that money, that "not a huge amount of support" also comes with a little surprise: its TAX FREE! Thats right, the one receiving the support gets all that FREE money! BUT, when tax time comes, who do you think does not get the child tax credits? Right, the one paying the support.

In my case, I was paying $800.00 for one child. Now I have custody (because my ex pushed her luck and tried to move away, and I fought and won custody in trial) and I just got back over $5,000 from tax returns. This equals about another $400.00 or so on top of the $1,100 a month that to you is a trivial amount.

I won't even get into why he is with the child 50% of the time and is still paying CS. To me that is probably misinformation.

Mike, people who have to call someone names immediately lose the argument. Try to be civil.

I said $1100 doesn't seem that high for TWO (2) children. I also questioned what his education is. Nothing was said about that, and he could very well have a PHd for all any of us know.

I realize the family court is always villanized here - and everyone who is a part of it, including GALs like me, are accused of not truly working in the child's best interest - but my guess is that there is probably a valid reason the court decided this father was purposely underemployed, and could do better, and therefore his children should not suffer a loss of support.

It doesn't mean they always get it right, but usually, I find when all the facts are known, it's not quite the one-sided situation everyone here overreacts to. Not to say that there haven't been cases that were unjust, such as Sterling's, but I think Spartee at least acknowleged that the family court is dealing with mostly good people trying their best to sort through a whole host of human misery, and it's often hard to assess who is acting in good faith and who is trying to hurt someone else.

In the midst of that, there are the kids, who depend on that child support. They may attend a special school, which requires tuition, or have special needs that require extra therapy or treatment, or special talents and extracurriculars that are extremely important to them.

When at all possible, everyone that I have ever dealt with in the family court system tries to hold that stability for the children. It's not always possible - and fathers do get reductions - but if the court suspects a parent isn't acting in good faith, there will be outcomes like this. And the losing party will make it sound awful - that they were "robbed" or "abused" by the court - yet, when you know all the facts, it usually isn't the case. Rarely ever in my FL court system.

I have simple solution (that likely won't be implemented).
Posted by: Julie at September 2, 2009 10:23 AM
-----------------------------
Julie- I really admired your post here.
You break it down into true equality, something I don't see many women do.

Kudos.

@David:

Thank you for the appreciation. I firmly believe in true equality for the sexes. It has been my personal experience (anecdotal though it may be) that many women use child support to attempt to get the life that they 'should have had' if the marriage hadn't failed. We all make decisions and we all pay consequences for them. I watched one family member almost go bankrupt when the child support ran out. All the kids were gone, but because she'd relied on the funds to cover her financial shortfalls, she had to sell her house to make up the difference. It is stupid to put yourself into that position. You know that the money will run out eventually.

I could go on, but you and I are on the same page. Thanks again for the appreciation.

-Julie

Oh, I'm so sorry lovelysoul...I forgot you are the authority on blogging and the rules of blogging. I did not know we were in a debate. I just think your statement about $1,100 a month not being a substantial amount was completely out of line.

But, knowing now that you are a GAL...well, your opinion makes all the sense in the world....

Julie, the problem is that your method wipes out all SAHMs. It's fine if both parents are working at the time of the divorce, and they both have comparatively equal abilities and earning capacities. However, that is rarely the case. Often, the mother is less skilled and/or educated, or has been out of the workforce for quite some time while she gave birth and cared for children.

We could say that this shouldn't be allowed. That women shouldn't stay home with their kids, but is that really what we want to do as a culture? To demand that everyone has to work and all kids must be reared, at least in part, by other caregivers, daycares, etc?

In almost every culture, males are the providers and mothers are the nurturers and caregivers for the children. One can argue why that is, or if it should be, but that is the standard for much of the world. It was our standard up through the 1950s and even into the 60s.

Much has changed obviously. Women demanded the right to go to work and many did. Yet, that wasn't what EVERY woman wanted. Many still wanted to stay home with their children and believed it was best for them. Studies tended to back them up too - at least those without feminist agendas.

Men were always expected to provide for their children. Yet, at the risk of getting attacked for being blunt, the men of this culture have turned the natural order on its head. They not only want equal, hands-on childrearing time, they want equal financial responsibility too. Never before have fathers been this involved in day-to-day childrearing. It's a new phenomonen.

I'd like to believe that much of it grew out of a fresh understanding of paternal bonds, maybe as a result of the more sensitive 60s era, where guys could get in touch with their feelings and express love more freely, which is a good thing, but there also seems to be less sincere components to this shift.

The family court often sees fathers who go for custody primarily so they will not have to pay child support. I, personally, have had two cases as a GAL where a father took custody only to be extremely neglectful or abusive and the children had to be removed. My sense was that these fathers didn't really want to be full-time dads as much as they wanted to hurt and "punish" the mother. This inevitably turns out badly for the child.

Young children tend to be more bonded with their mothers. They have been in her womb for 9 months, often breastfed, and mothers are usually the main caregivers during the toddler stage. So, there is usually an intense mother/child bond in the early years and often beyond.

Of course, there are also cases where that's not true, where the child is more bonded with the father or pretty well equally bonded with both, but, despite the changes in our culture, it is still more often the case that the child is bonded with the mother. That's not unusal, given that's it true in almost every other culture in the world, but HERE we cannot say it. Here we are supposed to only think in terms of equality now, whether it makes sense for the child or not.

Despite how aggrieved some guys are about cases that do not go the father's way, the father's-rights movement has made substantial changes to the standard formula of childcare. Split custody is becoming the norm, and along with it, the family court is having to adjust to a new model.

Still, I don't think it's a good idea to entirely abandon the traditional model. It simply isn't always the best thing for the children.

Julie, the problem is that your method wipes out all SAHMs. It's fine if both parents are working at the time of the divorce, and they both have comparatively equal abilities and earning capacities. However, that is rarely the case. Often, the mother is less skilled and/or educated, or has been out of the workforce for quite some time while she gave birth and cared for children.

I'm not saying that no mother should be a SAHM, however to expect your ex-husband to finance that lifestyle is unreasonable for all but the most wealthy in our society. Few people can support 2 complete households on one income.

Whether a woman worked inside or out of the home before the divorce, she should receive a division of the assets acquired during the marriage. The woman should then use those assets to sure up her finances and prepare to pay her half of the financial responsibility of children. That might include getting training, education, or getting a job. When you become a SAHM you run the risk of being left without the wage earner, either through death or divorce. An ex-husband should not be required to pay for their ex-wife's lifestyle. He should be required to pay half of the children's expenses and divide the marital assets in half. How the ex-wife has to spend them is her decision as an adult.

Is that scary for SAHMs? It should be, but welcome to personal franchise. We all have to pay for the decisions we make. A parent's decision to work or stay at home has trade offs. When a person signs up, he/she accepts those trade offs and should pay the consequences as we all do for our decisions. Does it always seem financially fair? Nope, but if the price is too high, then you should think about that in advance.

-Julie

This isn't about showing SAHMs "personal responsibility." It's not just scary for them. It's scary for the kids, who would be expected to lose their entire way of life under your method.

I'm all for women being independent, but I also strongly believe that children do best when they can be with a full-time parent caregiver as much as possible, which is usually the mother.

If the father made enough prior to the divorce to provide for his family in that manner - allowing his wife to be a SAHM - and he STILL makes enough to continue to allow the children to have their SAHM and the home they've always known - rather than being thrown into daycare and having to move to a strange place - then that is the least disruptive and emotionally stable way to handle things for the kids.

Children are already going through the most traumatic time of their lives, witnessing their parents split up, so to suggest that they should then move (perhaps away from their school district and all of their friends) and mom must hit the pavement looking for work may "sound" good, but in practice it would be abysmal.

The family court functions the way it does to keep from adding any more chaos to an already chaotic, frightening situation if this can be avoided.

Sometimes, it can't be avoided. Sometimes the childhood home must be sold and mom has to go back to work. But in a lot of SAHM situations, that isn't the case. The father's income is still sufficient to allow things to remain stable and consistent for the children. It may be a bit more of a stretch for the father, but usually, it is best for the kids.

I wish more dads would stop thinking about themselves and consider that. Like my friend, the physician, who has to stretch his income further now to support two homes, but he doesn't resent it because he knows his kids are getting the absolute best care possible. They are home with their mom where they've always been. That's the life he always wanted for them. The divorce has had as little impact on their lives as possible. They are happy and thriving. In a few years, they'll be off to top colleges and the struggle will be worth it.

Lovelysoul, I disagree with you that a SAHM should remain SAHM after a divorce with the expectation that her ex will continue to foot the bill. While I don't think its fair that a woman who gave up school or a career to stay home with the kids has to play catch up after a divorce, I do agree with Julie that it is a choice that many including myself made.

I went back to work and school after my divorce. I make my schedule around my kids but as they get older it has gotten easier and I no longer need childcare. While I have a bigger burden in many ways than my ex, I didn't expect him to support me forever and I don't expect to live in a big house watching soaps, joining the PTA and waiting for his checks.

I tell my kids and any young couples that I know that both people should have their educations, careers, and travel under their belt before they even consider marriage and kids. The better your position going into any relationship, the better off you'll be should it end. I can't change my choices from when I was 22, but I certainly do wish that I had not dropped out of school when I found out I was pregnant. And I compounded that by agreeing to quit my job and then had 2 more kids with an asshole. That was my choice and my fault. He has responsibility, but we divorced and I never expected to continue to stay home while he worked to support me. I just expect him to share some of the financial burden that came from having children together.

Yes, but that was your choice to go back to work, Kristen, and I don't disagree with it. But the idea that the court is going to MANDATE that for every SAHM seems wrong, at least initially. It would particularly be disruptive for very young children, and of course, the money the mother might be expected to earn while still trying to care for young children might even be cost-prohibitive when considering day-care expenses for multiple kids.

I'm against lifetime alimony, but I believe rehabilitative alimony for a period of time to help a SAHM get schooling or skilled to go back into the workforce is fair. The longer she's been a SAHM, and/or the less skilled she is, the longer that period should be.

Many women have made the choice (presumably with their husbands) to become full-time moms - not to be lazy, but to be the best mothers they can be. It is a valid job - one that benefits society as a whole because we can't possibly have enough quality caregivers and daycare workers for all the children who would need them if every divorced mom was mandated back into the outside workforce.

Being a SAHM should be respected as a real job because it IS one. I dislike the way that so many people feel it is ok to bash SAHMs as lazy. Ask momof4 whether she sits around all day watching soaps.

And if a man doesn't want to support that lifestyle for his kids, then he should only have children with a career-minded woman. Raising children is hard work, which automatically makes the woman more vulnerable. Pregnancy itself makes women more vulnerable. Years spent caring for children makes women more vulnerable and less employable.

I think consideration must be given especially to women who have spent many years home raising their children. To be fair, the court just can't throw these women back into the outside workforce, and we also have to consider how that will impact the hundreds of thousands of children. Who is going to care for them all while everyone works, and why are we, as a society, going to reinvent the whole childcare model that has been in place for centuries? Is it really a wise thing to do?

This isn't about showing SAHMs "personal responsibility."

Actually it is. In your example the only person making financial sacrifices is the husband. Why is it only his responsibility to ensure that the children are safe and secure? The woman in this example gets her ex-husband to maintain her standard of living for the sake of the kids, and if something bad happens to him and he is unable to continue with that level of support, he is sent to jail. How does that example show the woman showing responsibility for the children?

Your side of this debate consists of two items:

What about the children?
Men should learn to quit being so selfish

Those aren't real debate points, they are emotional pleas designed to foster an emotional reaction to anyone that doesn't agree. However, most children these days spend part of their day in the care of someone other than a parent. They turn out fine. It isn't as if daycare turns children into crack-whores and drug mules.

I agree that having a stay at home parent is the ideal, but divorce isn't about the ideal, the ideal is to have two loving parents in the home. That isn't going to happen either.

Let's look at if from your perspective though: Jane and Jim get a divorce and Jim is required to pay to allow Jane to continue to be a SAHM for their two children Jill and Jim Jr. who are both 5. Jane continues to care for the twins until their 18th birthday when the child support runs out. At that point, Jane has no skills, no job history for 20 years, no retirement savings, and she is at least in her 40s. She likely doesn't have any health insurance either, because that is typically linked to one's job. How exactly is Jane going to help her kids through college or support herself now that the kids are gone? If Jane had entered the work force 13 years previously, she would be in a better financial position and would therefore be able to help her kids as they entered adulthood and would be a much more effective wage earner for herself. She also would have been better prepared to cover any losses if Jim lost his job, got sick, or died. If Jim dies, how will the kids be cared for then?

What proof do you have to show that children of divorce suffer less when they have a SAHM than if they have working parents? This simply sounds like a bias against the primary wage earner. If women cannot be counted on to pay for their portion of a child's upbringing, then something should be done about that rather than forcing the husband to do it. It will be better for the kids (who will have greater financial security) it will be better for the mom (Who will be able to build a career and retirement) and it will be better for the dad (who won't be forced to continue to support multiple house-holds on a single salary).

-Julie

Lovelysoul, I am not bashing SAHM as lazy. I was one for many years. It was a choice my husband and I made together when we first married and had children. The life I was planning at 22 was not the life I had at 32 and I have to take equal responsibility for the choice I made to quit college and my job to stay home with kids while supporting his career. I don't feel its fair that I had to suffer such financial and career setbacks, but I also don't think its fair that I should expect him after I left him to support me financially in the same way that he did while we were married. I left him. I ended the marriage. The deal changed. Unfortunately the little picket fence life I wanted for my children was not happening and by me continuing to stay home after the divorce was not going to benefit any of us and I don't see how its fair that he should be expected to continue to support that lifestyle without my help without having the benefit of remaining in the marriage.
I know quite a few men who have been very generous to their ex wives because they saw that they were good mothers and wanted their children to have them home and felt that it was beneficial to their kids. Not all men can afford such generosity and it certainly should not be mandatory.
Again, I made my choice and I did pay a price, but we aren't in the 50's where there are no options for women. I can't catch up on the 15 years he put into his career but it doesn't mean I should give up completely and expect him to finance my lifestyle. Sharing the financial and emotional burden of having kids is different than providing a lifestyle that was designed for when we were married. The marriage is over. That changes things.
I do understand why the courts worked the way they did for so many years which was why I explained my situation. But so much has changed in the world and while not all for the better, its also not all for the worse. Women have so many more options than even 20 years ago when I was getting married. We have choices and options. More women made smarter choices than I did and that means they are in a better financial position in the event of a divorce. Fathers should be responsible for the kids, but to say that they should foot the bill completely while Mom stays home is not fair in any way.

Julie, I'm not advocating that women stay unskilled. Actually, many SAHMS have degrees. Those who don't need to take responsibility for their financial future. Anyone who doesn't plan ahead is stupid.

The age of the children is certainly a consideration for the court. But look at daycare costs. If a SAHM is providing that, then a father doesn't have to pay it - or in other words, he is paying it, just to their mother, which is better than a stranger if it's at all workable. Presumably the father chose to have these kids too, and if he did it alone, he would still have to pay a certain amount for daycare. The younger the children, the more that would be.

There are numerous studies showing that daycare isn't ideal. Even if it were, we don't have enough daycares and caregivers to care for all the children that would be effected if all divorced SAHMs were forced back to work.

Perhaps at a certain age, like when the children are old enough to be left home alone, the child support should end. I'm not necessarily opposed to that. But the child-support commitment isn't usually that long a period anyway. Few people get divorced when their children are infants, so, at most, it's 18 yrs but usually a lot less. In the case of Jane and Jim, it would 13 yrs, assuming the mom never went back to work.

I mean, we're not talking about a lifetime of enslavement. This is a father providing financially for his children and a custodial parent providing all the love, attention, structure, and nurturing necessary to do it successfully. A father whose income the court has deemed sufficient to keep the kids in the same situation they are in at the time of divorce, rather than disrupt their lives.

It should be viewed as a team. Father/provider - mother/nurturer. To cut it down strictly to money as if the SAHM contributes nothing is the wrong view.

I mean, we're not talking about a lifetime of enslavement. This is a father providing financially for his children and a custodial parent providing all the love, attention, structure, and nurturing necessary to do it successfully. A father whose income the court has deemed sufficient to keep the kids in the same situation ...

Yes, but that was your choice to go back to work, Kristen, and I don't disagree with it.

This is the part that bothers me about your perspective. The woman gets a choice about whether she is going to go back to work to support her kids financially, but the father is required by court mandate to support an entire other household in the manner in which they have become accustomed. In the paradigm that you are describing, the man has no choices, the woman holds all the cards. She decides if she is going to go back to work. Why is it that the court can mandate that the husband work and earn a certain amount, but that it shouldn't mandate that the woman does the same thing? It is a double standard, it is just one that favors women over men.

Oh and a good parent, whether male or female, will nurture, provide loving attention, and provide structure to a child whether that parent works or not. That is a non-issue. The question when it comes to child support is how to distribute the financial support of these two people who don't want to deal with each other any longer. That is why it comes down to money. Money can't buy you happiness, but it can pay for your food and rent while you continue the search.

-Julie

"It is a double standard, it is just one that favors women over men."

No, it favors children. That is the family court's objective, and it is only because of the bitterness involved in divorce that men and women have come to view it as all about them.

"It's not fair you get to keep your lifestyle!..." Forgetting that it's your children's lifestyle. That's their home. It's likely where their favorite memories are and where their pet rabbit is buried in the backyard and their best friends live across the street. It's where they feel most comfortable, loved, and safe.

It's not about either parent. It's about the child. It just so happens that the SAHM is an intensely important person in the child's life, just like the home, so it simply works out in her favor - seeing how we can't cut the kid or home in half to please both parents.

The cynical philosophy is that a SAHM is "enjoying a lifestyle" and what she provides is useless and can be provided by anybody. Let's just throw all kids in daycare then. As soon as parents divorce, off they go. Sorry, kid. Just the breaks. Unfortunately for you, your parents got divorced.

I don't think it's healthy for a society to start farming out their childcare to strangers. I just don't. We should be encouraging parental teamwork in raising these children, and whenever possible, a full-time SAHM is preferable to putting kids in daycare.

But if you enirely devalue the contribution of SAHMs, then you'll never see it as "equal".

I don't think it's healthy for a society to start farming out their childcare to strangers. I just don't.

That is your opinion. However, you must admit that there are millions of perfectly functional adults that went to daycare. We aren't talking about a causative action (daycare=bad childhood=criminal), we are talking about your personal preference. You are allowed your preference as long as you are paying for it.

Plus it doesn't have to be strangers. It can be a friend, a family member, a neighbor. Daycare can also occur at a persons place of employment. You are making assumptions.

But if you enirely devalue the contribution of SAHMs, then you'll never see it as "equal".

This isn't about devaluing SAHMs (you are once again going for the emotional rather that looking at this logically). This is about looking at who carries a greater burden in this arrangement and questioning whether it is fair. The average man cannot support 2 households with his income. Period. Most families with a SAHM do so by sacrificing a great deal, and that is with only one household to pay for. It is unrealistic to expect that a man can support two complete households without ever faltering, ever failing, ever being laid off. In this situation the man carries a greater burden, and it is unrealistic to expect that a perfectly capable adult (the mom) would be unable to earn money to pay for her portion of the bills coming in.

If you support a woman deciding that she wants to go back to work and put the kids in daycare, why can you not support the man saying "I cannot support two households on my income" and push the woman to enter the job market? If the man refused to enter the job market he would be put in jail! What makes the man's decision inherently 'selfish' and the woman's 'altruistic'?

-Julie

"The cynical philosophy is that a SAHM is "enjoying a lifestyle" and what she provides is useless and can be provided by anybody."

I don't recall reading that once in any comment, especially mine or Julie's. I was once a SAHM. I take my role as a mother very seriously. Unfortunately life is not always fair or ideal and sometimes we have to adapt to circumstances that are created by divorce.

"It's not about either parent. It's about the child. It just so happens that the SAHM is an intensely important person in the child's life, just like the home, so it simply works out in her favor - seeing how we can't cut the kid or home in half to please both parents."

A SAHM is more intensely important than a father who works but has cared for the child? A man should have to continue with the same financial obligations that were expected in the marriage despite no longer being in the marriage? This benefits the child how? When the father cannot move on with his life because he cannot afford to and a child has a miserable father? And just who exactly decided that the only model that benefits a child is one where there is a SAHM? Would you like to tell that to the many women that successfully balance motherhood with a career?
Nobody is talking about ripping a child from the arms of a loving mother and throwing it to strangers. Divorce is not always about life being fair or ideal, but what part of life is always about being fair or ideal. Its called life and sometimes things change and we have to make the best of it. Is a child who watches his parents try to create a better life any worse off than a child who watches his father work his ass off so he can afford to have his own life while he also is forced to support his now ex wife so that she doesn't have to work because some expert decided that a child would be emotionally scarred for life because Mommy had to work?
Just because a mother stayed home does not make her a better mother and it is not always a guarantee that the child will turn out better than the kid down the block who had a mother who worked. And just because a child has a mother who chose to stay home does not mean that it will be a major trauma if that mother goes back to work. There are many studies that show that children going to daycare do better socially and academically than kids who don't. I'm not saying all kids should go to daycare, but its not the dungeons and dragons existence you seem to be making it out to be to further your argument that would force men to support households in a way that is really not fair.

Julie, I am only speaking of cases where a judge has deemed the income level sufficient to support two households. If the income level isn't sufficient, then obviously things have to change. Fathers do successfully go to court and get reductions in child support. But it can't be his opinion. It needs to be proven because many wealthy men will try to weasel out of these commitments.

When the income is there, I believe that fathers should realize it is in their children's best interest to have a SAHM, as many of your friends apparently have.

There are good daycares and bad daycares. It certainly doesn't usually ruin a child to go to daycare or another caregiver, but the idea that we would mandate that happen in every divorce case, even when the father's income (or the mother's, if the dad is the SAHM) is sufficient seems foolish.

The best people to raise children are their parents. When society starts viewing the role of caregiver as arbitrary, I think we're trouble.

Glenn Sacks really needs to get in on this thread. Lovelysoul, you are simply stating the standard lines men hear every day. It looks to me like you are nothing more than a troll who is looking to cause trouble on this board.

You are a GAL? With this type of misandric commenting? Are not GAL's supposed to be impartial to gender when they get assigned cases? You should be ashamed of yourself. You remind me of the first GAL we had in a modification 5 years ago, who said to my face that my ex was totally nuts, and then in court went with the old "no change in custody" routine. She was a lesbian, no kids, and was simply an overpaid attorney.

You think Father's cannot be nurturers? I am a single father who won custody from my angry, malicious, and vindictive ex-wife. I am the nurturer, she was the user, and soaked me for all the money she could.

It is comments like yours that show that there needs to be a massive overhaul of the divorce laws in this country.

You see Father's as nothing but a wallet, and a source of income for the poor, helpless, single mommies who can't get a job. Maybe, just maybe, they should not be getting divorced!!?? Wow, what a concept.

Bottom line is if you can't afford to take care of the child you should not get custody!!!

These days women are getting custody and they are declaring themselves as "strong and independent women". Really? Can you still shout that out if your ex quit paying the child support?

I fully support SAHDs too. I wish there were more of them, but it's rare that I get a case where a dad has been the one to be at home with the kids, so naturally, we are talking about the most common scenario. But if the dad was the stay-at home parent, my position would be the same: Try to keep things consistent and stable for the child.

Some states have paid GALs, and they tend to be basically attorneys, not all very good. In my state, GALs are volunteer, and I think we get a better crop as a result. We have no dog in the fight, so to speak. We are there to advocate for the child - not usually in divorce cases, but in abuse/neglect cases. I see, peripherally, the damage and trauma that contentious divorces cause children, but most of the time, my assignment is to determine which, if any, parent should possibly regain custody because the children have been removed by CPS. I don't give a damn what sex parent that is. I just need them not to abuse their child.

And most of the kids I see have working parents (if they're even capable of working and not strung out on drugs or alcohol). I wish I dealt with kids who had at least ONE stay-at-home parent because I honestly believe that is best if possible.

Poor kids, passed around from daycare to daycare to foster-care and various caregivers do not thrive as well as kids with stable home situations.

Julie, I am only speaking of cases where a judge has deemed the income level sufficient to support two households.

If the income level isn't sufficient, then obviously things have to change. - lovelysoul

And what makes you think those two situations arent the same for some people?

What if the income isnt sufficant but a judge has deemed it is?

Heres an article on the child support system LS

The man was paying child support to his ex even though the kids were living with him

Read on

http://www.examiner.com/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner~y2009m9d1-York-PA-Police-arrest-beat--throw-dad-in-jail-naked-for-not-payng-500-child-suppor

Enjoy

Lujlp, if you come to court with the proper documentation, I don't see why a judge would rule that it is when it isn't....unless he/she believes you're hiding some other assets.

My BIL is a divorce attorney, and he has a service on his computer that can look up anyone's assets. He has this because it's not uncommon for people (most often husbands) to claim they have nothing when it can clearly be shown that they do. That certainly doesn't go over well with a judge.

But if you're honest, and can document your income and your living expenses appropriately, and it doesn't appear that you are allowing yourself to be purposely underemployed so as to get back at your ex, then I think a reasonable judge would grant a reduction, and I know men who have gotten reductions.

Back in the 80s, I even knew a drug smuggler who went to court, and, as nervous as he was to put it on the record, he let his lawyer explain how he'd made his money and why he could no longer make such large amounts of money without resorting back to crime, and therefore he couldn't support his young daughter in the style she was once accustomed and remain a decent, law-abiding citizen, and he got his support considerably reduced.

His lawyer actually turned out to later be my divorce lawyer, and he loves to tell that story.

So, a good attorney also helps. I will be interested to see whether my friend, the physician, gets a reduction. Based on what you guys are saying, I'm curious if it's really that hard.

LS, my view is simple. When two people bring a child into their family, they take on the responsibility to nurture, care for, and financially support that child. It is highly inappropriate to expect one person (typically the man) to be forced to front all of the financial support for the child when the martial relationship is dissolved.

Is having a SAHP ideal? Yes it is. However 61% of children spend time in daycare in ages 0-6:

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/21ChildCare.cfm

You cannot say that 61% of the population is maladjusted because they were in daycare. Because it is a personal preference issue, and because the Mom committed to supporting the child as well, it is only fair and reasonable for the mother to pay for her own household and split the cost of raising the child.

Just because many of the abuse cases you see have two parents working, that doesn't mean that all abuse cases start with working parents. It is just a symptom of the fact that the majority of parents work these days, and children are more secure financially because of it.

Lujlp, if you come to court with the proper documentation, I don't see why a judge would rule that it is when it isn't....unless he/she believes you're hiding some other assets.

This is what gets me about this 'taking each case as it comes' nonsense. A person must come to court and beg to keep his own money. What if those 'assets' he is hiding were there to pay for college for the kids, or pay for his retirement? Why should someone have to beg to keep their own money?

-Julie

Julie, in a divorce, you aren't allowed to hide assets, especially those that might have been attained during the marriage. Those are supposed to be part of the equitable distribution.

I'm not saying being in daycare leads to abuse, but stressed-out working parents are more likely to abuse. You and I can disagree, but in my opinion, the SAHM is doing her part in raising the children too. She gets no credit for it, as many men (as well as people like you) devalue that contribution as monetarily meaningless. The father is deemed to be "doing all the work" providing financial support.

There's more to raising children than finances. The SAHM (or dad) is doing his/her share as part of raising the child. If it is at all affordable, this is vastly better arrangement than putting all children of divorce in daycare and insisting their moms go out and try to earn what will most likely be a menial living, at best, to provide her "share" of the support - all the while being the custodial parent too?! So, she has TWO jobs then! That's not fair.

Most mothers are custodial parents, so they have the almost full-time job of caring for the kids. At best, they get can get part-time work while handling all the demands of childrearing. It is only fair that the non-custodial parent contribute financially. Parenting is a TEAM effort.

I know you've said before that you don't have kids, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's one area where you cannot possibly empathize with what a parent has to deal with. Believe me, the answer isn't to create MORE stressed-out working moms in every divorce case.

Plus, your idea that they will all have rewarding careers and be better off financially is flawed too. Most of the working mothers I see are waitresses, bartenders or retail clerks. They rarely have more than a live-by-the-moment promise of financial security. It's paycheck to paycheck.

We'd be better off demanding that they go to online school while at home with the kids. Then, at a certain age, when the kids are able to be more independent, the court could mandate she return to outside work, and the support payments could be reduced.

What I don't want to see happen is for stay-at-home-parents to be ripped away from their kids in the midst of an already traumatic divorce. Some time needs to elapse. That is the overall goal of family court - to attempt to keep things stable and consistent for the kids while their world is being torn apart (either through divorce or abuse). It is the right thing to do.

lovelysoul said:

"Most mothers are custodial parents, so they have the almost full-time job of caring for the kids. At best, they get can get part-time work while handling all the demands of childrearing"

Thats strange, because I am a custodial parent, and i have a full-time job. I am also my son's soccer coach, baseball coach, the outdoors committee chairman for my cub scout pack, and the PTO President! I have absolutely no problems taking on all these things, AND I spend ALL of my time with my son. AND, I get NO child support from my ex...bless her heart the little college student. So why can't women do all of these things? Am I just special because I'm a man? Oh no! We have to take care of the poor, helpless, single mommies, because they're not intelligent enough to get a job, and can't multitask like a man...boo hooo...

"What I don't want to see happen is for stay-at-home-parents to be ripped away from their kids in the midst of an already traumatic divorce."

But I guess its ok to rip the child away from his NON-NURTURING, loser father isn't it lovelysoul? Because the mother is always the nurturer and the father only provides finacially, right?

You are so full of crap, spouting every single stereotype in the book. Lucky for children in this country that more men are now winning custody, mostly because of breaking down stereotypes like the ones you obviously subscribe to.

in my opinion, the SAHM is doing her part in raising the children too. She gets no credit for it, as many men (as well as people like you) devalue that contribution as monetarily meaningless.

I am not devaluing the work that a SAHM is doing (again with the emotional pleas), I am only saying that it is a luxury that is available to those who can afford it. You are minimizing the effort that it takes to support two households on one salary.

The average yearly income in the US is 42,409. Of that, the family usually has a net of 29,686.30. That means a monthly take home pay of 2,473.85.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-221.pdf

The average mortgage is: $684 per month. We are looking at supported two households, so that would be $1368

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/H150-03.pdf

Food is usually 20% so that is about $500 for food.

The average car payment is about $300, and we will again have 2 which takes the last $600 of money.

We haven't paid for anything other than House, Food, and car, and we are left with nothing for insurance, gas, clothes, health costs, credit card debt, or anything else. How is that man going to eat when all of his funds are going to feeding his ex-wife and their kids so that they can 'keep their lifestyle'?

This isn't about devaluing the work of a SAHM, this is about getting people to understand that we each have finite resources, and the vast majority of men cannot afford to pay for two households. You don't seem to understand that. You appear to think that if the court says that the man can, that he will be able to, and men are ending up in jail because they are incapable of living on what is left. These men aren't deadbeat dads, they are simply trying to afford to eat, sleep, and have a life.

I know you've said before that you don't have kids, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's one area where you cannot possibly empathize with what a parent has to deal with. Believe me, the answer isn't to create MORE stressed-out working moms in every divorce case.

Ah, the old: You don't have kids so you have no right to an intelligent opinion. (Julie's monitor drips with sarcasm) Cute. Way to create a strawman. What you don't know is that just because I've never given birth to children doesn't mean that I haven't raised any. I was raising my two younger sisters while working and going to high school. I was the only virgin teenage mom you will ever meet. I understand clearly what is involved. But I also understand that money doesn't grow on trees, and although it takes more than money to raise kids, you can't feed them, clothe them, or keep a roof over their heads with 'love'. You can't demand $100 from me when I only have $50 to give. Oh, but if you were my ex-wife and I was the ex-husband, that's okay, right?

Plus, your idea that they will all have rewarding careers and be better off financially is flawed too. Most of the working mothers I see are waitresses, bartenders or retail clerks. They rarely have more than a live-by-the-moment promise of financial security. It's paycheck to paycheck.

Most of America is living paycheck to paycheck. That isn't news. However, if the woman picks up shifts at the diner while her kids are in school, the ex-husband might have the ability to eat this month. Besides, anyone who wants higher education and is capable of the work can get it in this country. No one can plead 'I can't make it happen'. Between grants and loans, anyone can afford an education. If the mom wants an education, she needs to sack up and make the sacrifices required. But it is not the fault of the ex-husband if she doesn't do it. Once the divorce is final, it is all about her decisions.

If it is at all affordable, this is vastly better arrangement than putting all children of divorce in daycare and insisting their moms go out and try to earn what will most likely be a menial living, at best, to provide her "share" of the support - all the while being the custodial parent too?! So, she has TWO jobs then! That's not fair.

But it is fair to force men to work multiple jobs at threat of jail to support an ex-wife (and children he rarely gets to see) that refuses to earn any money to help the cause?

What I don't want to see happen is for stay-at-home-parents to be ripped away from their kids in the midst of an already traumatic divorce.

Whether you want to see it or not when we are dealing with financial matters there are limited assets. Men are not unlimited sources of money that should be squeezed to afford luxury for others. Whether you want to admit it or not, having a stay at home parent is a luxury in this country.

You say that you want men and women to be partners in child rearing. Why is it you only want that to happen when it keeps using men as money spigots and keeps women from being able to support themselves independently? Why not make joint custody the default and not pay anyone for child support?

-Julie

Thats strange, because I am a custodial parent, and i have a full-time job. I am also my son's soccer coach, baseball coach, the outdoors committee chairman for my cub scout pack, and the PTO President! I have absolutely no problems taking on all these things, AND I spend ALL of my time with my son. AND, I get NO child support from my ex...bless her heart the little college student. So why can't women do all of these things? Am I just special because I'm a man? Oh no! We have to take care of the poor, helpless, single mommies, because they're not intelligent enough to get a job, and can't multitask like a man...boo hooo...

YOU GO MIKE!!! You sound like a great, involved Dad.

The honest answer Mike is that women can do all of these things, but for some reason believe that they cannot. I'm a woman and I don't understand this thought process.

-Julie

I don't subscribe to anything but the truth. I'm a pragmatist. If more fathers wanted to be custodial parents or SAHDs, I'd be ALL for it. That's great. And I'd say your ex should contribute to you financially.

But the reality is that most men DON'T want to be the full-time caregiver, which is fine too, but at the same time, they don't think it's fair they have to pay child support.

So, the only option I hear from people like you and Julie is that EVERY parent must work and we eliminate the very idea of children ever having a stay-at-home parent (oh, unless they're parents are married and wealthy).

That will really impact so many kids and families. It's a dumb mandate for a society. First, we don't have enough quality caregivers. Women ike Julie with good jobs can afford the best, but the mother working at Walmart can't. You'll have more kids getting the absolute worst kind of care, while living with overworked stressed-out moms.

And who is going to hire all these divorced moms? We don't have enough jobs for the people out there in the workforce now.

Maybe Obama can build giant child-care centers, almost like the orphanages of old, where divorced people can all drop their kids off. We can have "free" healthcare and childcare. Why not? As long as it's "fair" to both sexes. That's what's important. If Daddy feels shafted at having to be the one to leave the home in a divorce, and see his kids less, then, by God, Mom is going to have to pay too - give HER less time with the children. Make her work! Throw the kids in daycare. Doesn't matter if it's hurts them because it's FAIR!!!

It's not biased or stereotyped to recognize a bad idea.

I'm sorry, Julie, but you just don't realize that many women are not like you. Many men are not like you either. You are obviously very smart and have a career, not just a menial job.

That's probably not entirely unaffected by the fact that you are childless.

You have to look at the real situation, and it's kind of elitist to pretend that everyone can have the life and opportunities you do. Nor does everyone want what you have. Just because you believe a career is the end-all and be-all, doesn't mean it's right for everyone - even if we could theoretically give everyone a career, which we can't. We can't even give everyone basic jobs.

Childcare IS a job. That's the point. It is a full-time job, and as far as I'm concerned, someone like Mike has TWO jobs. He may be fine with that, and he probably doesn't get child support...and he probably, like you, has a well-paying career, not just a menial job. But it doesn't diminish the fact that childcare is a JOB. It is for one child, but add in two or three or four.

You look down on SAHMs out of your own biases.

LS, you are still avoiding the primary issues:

Who is going to pay for all of these women to live without jobs?

Who is going to rehabilitate the moms and give them job skills when they have been out of work for 20 years and suddenly have to support themselves because the child support ended?

I have no problem with the non-custodial parent paying child support. He should contribute to the welfare of his children. But you cannot expect the average single paycheck to support multiple households. There are limits as to how far you can stretch a dollar.

This has nothing to do with being punitive to mothers, it has everything to do with knowing that everyone has limits and responsibilities. Adults are responsible for supporting themselves. If they don't want this, they can marry someone who will support them or move back home with parents.

Men are limited as to how many homes they can support and how hard they can work to earn the money.

I'm astounded that you would really recommend this idea to a judge on a regular basis. Can you not see that it makes both the children and the mom more financially vulnerable? You have a single point of failure, and if the father gets behind, he can end up in jail. Now the children have a mother that isn't working and a father who is in jail. That felony will certainly help him in the job market.

Also, you are basing this on the idea that the only two options are 'daycare' and 'SAHM'. What about grandparents, trading off with neighbors, car pooling, working from home, etc. Is it really all that impossible for a woman with children to support herself? If so, I need to call my sisters and tell them that what we all did was a miracle so that we can call the Vatican.

I have given you multiple reasons, logic, as well as math to back up my assertion that one average paycheck can't really support two average American households. The only response you have is:

Think about the children!

Is that perhaps because you cannot come up with a good logical response to the idea that money can only be stretched so far? Or perhaps you are attempting to justify your decisions in a public forum on the internet?

Frankly this is getting dull. I provide math, you say
"WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?".

I provide logic and you say,

"WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?"

Do you have any logical justification backed up with math that indicates that the average person could support two houses and 4 people on 42k a year?

-Julie

You have to look at the real situation, and it's kind of elitist to pretend that everyone can have the life and opportunities you do.

I made every opportunity that I ever got. I worked through high school supporting my sisters until I was able to find a better situation for them. I worked my way through college taking on 2 or 3 jobs to pay my bills. What you don't understand is that this is the land of opportunity, but you have to get off your ass to make your own opportunity. No one is going to make it for you.

(It is kinda funny to have the daughter of a dirt farming militia man type called an elitist.)

Just because you believe a career is the end-all and be-all, doesn't mean it's right for everyone - even if we could theoretically give everyone a career, which we can't. We can't even give everyone basic jobs.

I don't believe that a career is the be all end all. I simply believe that all adults should support themselves and live within the means that they are able to provide. If you cannot support yourself, get a job, get an education, or make an opportunity. It is not anyone else's job to pay for your decisions.

But it doesn't diminish the fact that childcare is a JOB. It is for one child, but add in two or three or four.

I agree that childcare is a job..but it isn't a job that pays rent, food, electricity, bus fare, etc. When a parent decides to have a child, that parent volunteers (assuming consensual intercourse, yadda, yadda, yadda)to take on that responsibility. With that comes the continued responsibility to pay your bills, keep the lights on, etc. It is unrealistic to expect 42k to support two houses (or apartments), two cars, food, clothing, medical care, and incidentals. If mom wants to be the custodial parent, she should understand that she is taking on the more difficult role and suck it up.

(And if dads don't fight for joint custody, they can't bitch when they never see their kids.)

After divorce the bills still need to be paid. With finite resources, a man cannot support two houses. He doesn't have a fairy godmother...

You still haven't defined how the man should expect to make 42k support two households.

-Julie

Julie, I don't control what a judge does, and child support is based on formulas. It is not like I say, "Oh, this man makes $42,000 per year, make him pay $20,000 in child support so his ex can stay home." Child support is simply a PERCENTAGE of his income - the same for everybody - and frankly it is usally NOT enough for most custodial moms to live on. They usually still have to work, at least part-time.

The problem seems to be with the relativey small percentage of men who make quite a bit more than that - whose income is high enough that the child support formula works out to be enough for a mother to stay home without working.

And I did say it would more effective to demand schooling, which can easily be done from home these days. If the child support allows the mother to stay home, then it can be good for the children as well as productive for her.

I work from home and did it while parenting, and I make a very good living and have more financial security than most women in this country. I don't get child support. I run several businesses that my ex and I own together. We pay the children's expenses off the top and split the remaining profits.

Many mothers can be SAHMs and also better themselves. I know many who have started home-based businesses.

Not everyone has family to lean on. Of course that would be great, but you're just throwing out the best possible options, and not everyone has those.

But, please, I am NOT talking about poor men who can't afford two households. The court can see the income and it is a set FORMULA. Very few mothers can live solely off the child support, but the ones who can are lucky, and so are the children.

The childcare has to be provided by someone. That's the point. Why not a parent...if it's affordable? You offer no proof why that is bad for a child other than this ridiculous notion that that they're destined to financial ruin if mom doesn't work outside the home.

I would say there is a very small percentage of women who ultimately cannot work, or who would choose not to. Most SAHMs eventually re-enter the workforce, even start their own businesses. It's not this black hole of ignorance you make it out to be.

You look down on SAHMs out of your own biases.

I don't look down on SAHMs (You are projecting again). I just look down at someone who expects to get a free financial ride. When you are in a relationship, having 'paycheck' spouse and a 'home making' spouse is a trade off. The two are providing services to the greater good of the home.

Once that relationship ends, the 'home making' spouse shouldn't get a free financial ride. He/She is no longer providing a service to the 'paycheck spouse'. Each household should provide for the children (both emotionally and financially), but I don't see any divorced SAHMs going over to the exes house to clean the toilets, do you?

If you want someone to cover your bills, stay married or find someone else to cover them.

-Julie

It's not a free ride. It NEVER was a free ride! The home parent is taking care of the children, providing the childcare that SOMEONE is going to have to provide, regardless. It's a job - same as he has a job. You only view it as a "free financial ride" because you place no real value in what the stay-at-home parent does. You think it's just some cushy arrangement between married people. "Ok, honey, you stay home and do the 'easy' job of caring for our 4 young kids, while I go do REAL work."

You obviously have no respect for the work involved. The work stays the same, whether they divorce or not (in fact it probably increases with divorce). So, if it is still financially feasible, based on the couple's assets, for the stay-at-home parent to continue to do that job, rather then farm it out to others, then it makes sense for her (or him) to continue to do so, at least until the children are older.

I am NOT talking about poor men who can't afford two households.

This is the thing. 42k is not POOR, it is AVERAGE. Only the most affluent amongst us could ever dream of affording two households which makes this entire discussion rather moot.

It's not this black hole of ignorance you make it out to be.

I'm not claiming that SAHMs are a black hole of ignorance. You are the one saying that making a mother work when she has children is 'unfair' because that gives her 'two jobs' and that having a working mother increases a child's risk of abuse. I'm saying that you are underestimating women.

If you are an adult, then you need to pay your own bills. If you have kids and don't want them in daycare, then find a way to pay your bills working from home. However, the average guy won't be able to afford to support you after the divorce is final. The guy that earns much more than average shouldn't be forced to. Both should pay for his half of the child's expenses and that is it.

The childcare has to be provided by someone. That's the point. Why not a parent...if it's affordable?

Part of the court mandated child support is to be used for daycare, correct? So, isn't the ex-husband already paying for daycare?

It's not a free ride. It NEVER was a free ride! The home parent is taking care of the children, providing the childcare that SOMEONE is going to have to provide, regardless. It's a job - same as he has a job.

I said a free financial ride. How does you caring for your own children pay the light bill? How does it pay the rent? Are you able to fill up your gas tank with it?

Does being a SAHM provide a service to the children and the spouse? Yes it does. It is part of the distribution of labor that goes on in any long term relationship. However, it does not provide a PAYCHECK You know: wampum, benjamin's, dead presidents, green backs, cash, money.

There are many things that I do on a daily basis that are part of my full time job being a wife, or a sister, or a pseudo-mother that I do not get paid for. Does that make them less challenging or rewarding? No, BUT THEY DON'T PAY THE FUCKING BILLS. You cannot expect to terminate a relationship and still get all of the benefits of said relationship. If you want a divorce, fine...but you will need to go back into the workforce to pay your half of the expenses. If he divorces you, that sucks, but you will still need to find a way to pay your bills.

I recognize the difference between emotional and financial value. Being a SAHM provides much in the way of emotional value for the children and the mother. The financial value has to be offset against how much you would earn in the market place.

-Julie

Mike, Your son sounds very lucky to have such a great dad!

Lovelysoul, the ideal world that you would like to see does not exist. I would love to stay at home and not work, spending every free moment boating with my kids or taking art classes while my ex works four jobs to make that happen. Actually, that's a lie. I would never want that because its not fair and its not a good thing to show my children. My children saw me leave an abusive marriage, get a decent job, go back to school, and still manage to go to their school functions and sports activities. They knew that while sometimes I was stretched thin, that it was because I made choices that were about making us a healthier and happier family. Its not about putting down SAHMs because as I said earlier, I was one, but I wanted a divorce. As Julie pointed out, I'm not going over to clean his toilets and make his bed, he shouldn't have to foot all of the bills.
My kids have not suffered major trauma because I did things to make our lives better as opposed to staying home. If someone can stay home, great, but you act like all children of working parents are at risk and that is not true. There are plenty of SAHMs who are shitty parents and staying home doesn't change that just as a mother who has to work because circumstances changed is not a bad mother because she is now working.
Would it be great if kids could have a parent at home all the time? Maybe. It would be even greater if the kids had two parents that worked together to provide financially and emotionally. My ex is a shit and doesn't care if he sees his kids. That hurts my children. I would give anything for the to have a father who wanted to be an active part of their lives. You seem to be discounted the fact that children need fathers just as much as mothers and if the father is forced to work 4 jobs so the mother doesn't have to work one, the kids lose out on valuable time with another caring parent.

Julie, you only look at money, not what's best for the children. I'm not being hokey or emotional to say that. As a GAL, that is my mandate, and it is the court's mandate.

Yes, the guys making an average income are going to be paying child support which will likely not be sufficient for the mother to stay-at-home. In all probability she doesn't stay home anyway, unless they're very frugal. Therefore, those kids are probably already used to being in daycare. It is the lifestyle they are familar and comfortable with PRIOR to divorce. The court merely wants to keep them consistent with the life they know, if possible.

However, there is no reason that my friend, the physician, making upwards of $300,000 per year, should be unable to keep his children in their home with their SAHM, which is what they have known all their lives. Why should they have to leave their private school, where all their friends are and they are thriving academically? Why should they have to move? Why should the mother have to sell the home and go to work at Walmart or someplace? She owns the home, which is worth most people's retirement. If she plans well, she will be set financially after the kids are gone.

And one of the reasons the court doesn't mandate such unnecessary and drastic life changes is because it would create a rich parent/poor parent situation. The poor parent can't compete with the fancy lifestyle the other parent would be able to provide - which is what the children are most comfortable with. Naturally, the kids would end up wanting to live full-time with the richer parent, regardless of what's best.

The court views these parents as a team. Even though the doctor was working outside the home, the wife's contribution of childcare and homecare is considered just as valid - just as important, even from a monetary sense. That is why she was granted the house in the divorce settlement, as part of a split of their assets after 18 years of marriage. Whatever they owned and bought during those 18 years is JOINT. It doesn't matter where the money came from. It is presumed that the doctor has been as successful as he is, in part, because he had a supportive partner. That is how the family court views it.

Besides, the whole child support period will end at age 18. His kids are 14 and 16 now. We're talking an obligation of 10 years total (the divorce was 4 yrs ago) to keep his children in the comfortable life they've always known with their mother at home with them. After that, things will change. But, as long as it is affordable, why should their lives be drastically altered? What good does that do?

Kristen, please don't misunderstand me. I very much admire the way you've handled your life and parenting. I am not suggesting every mom stay home. The only thing the court tries to maintain FOR THE CHILDREN in a divorce is the style of life they know prior to that. You are a working mother and your kids are used to you working. That's wonderful. No court would make you stay at home.

We are just talking about kids who already have SAHMs, and the fathers with the resources to provide that consistency. It's about not creating unnecessary life changes that might be traumatic to a child already in the midst of a traumatic divorce.

Julie, you only look at money, not what's best for the children.

That is your perspective. From mine I'm trying to see all sides win and be treated fairly.

That is why she was granted the house in the divorce settlement, as part of a split of their assets after 18 years of marriage. Whatever they owned and bought during those 18 years is JOINT.

As it should be. I'm not debating alimony or division of assets. All assets earned by a couple in a community property state during their marriage are earned by both of them together. It makes sense and is fair for both parties to get an equal financial cut of the proceeds, including social security and pension/401k. All assets earned during the marriage (unless preceded by a prenup) should be 50/50 split by both parties.

I am also not saying that the non-custodial parent shouldn't pay an appropriate amount of child support. That isn't the question here.

In your example, at the time of the divorce the mom was likely in her early to mid forties. The kids were 10 and 12. Most doctors marry college educated women, so we can assume that the SAHM has a degree. We can also assume that she got more than just the house, but also some liquid assets and some retirement funds in addition to any child support Dr. Dad is paying.

But what bothers me most of all is that the assumption is that the man is required to pay for the entirety of the support for the children and the mother, but the mother can get a job when she decides it's 'best for the kids'.

Besides, the whole child support period will end at age 18...After that, things will change.

What happens when the kids turn 18 during their senior year of high school? When the older one turns 18, suddenly shit is going to go south...I've watched it with family members. Money will suddenly become a problem. Mom won't be able to afford the house any longer and right at the time when the kids are looking for help leaving the nest the mom is going to be hitting rock bottom looking for money.

Mom will have no job history for almost 20 years and will never be able to afford the 'family home' even if the mortgage is paid off. Why not start that process now and get her feet under her before the rug is pulled and the support goes away?

I don't understand why an able bodied woman with a (presumed) college degree cannot contribute financially for her own welfare between 7:30 AM and 4:30 PM when her kids are at school. How is she 'being a mom' during those hours? What emotional value add is she providing when she isn't the one caring for the kids?

-Julie

I don't know that she's doing nothing. I have no idea. Maybe she has an online business (she has a degree from Columbia). I mean, that really isn't anybody's business but hers.

The court merely sets the child support based on the formulas. It doesn't determine whether whether a parent has to work or not work. Ultimately, that is his/her decision based on whether the amount is sufficient for the lifestyle they lead. Some mothers, who really want to stay home may be able to cut coupons, sell blood, trade stuff on E-bay, or whatever and stretch a small child support payment far enough to stay home.

In that event, the father may well gripe that he's "paying for her to stay home" without realizing the sacrifices she is making to do so.

But, really, the non-custodial parent is simply expected to pay a percentage of their income. I believe it is the same percentage, whether rich or poor. From there, the other parent should make the decision whether to work full-time, part-time, or stay-at-home. That may depend on many factors, such as the special needs of the children, how many, where they live, the availability of daycare, and so forth.

Nobody's saying a mom HAS to stay home, but if she can swing it, and feels it's best for the kids, then that's her choice. I completely agree with you that it's a good idea that she not entirely waste her free time, and try to plan for the future when the kids are gone.

I think most SAHMs do. They don't sit around doing nothing. Like I said, many work part-time, volunteer at school, or do charity work. I think most people prefer to be productive citizens.

My mother left my father in the early eighties, we moved in with my aunt in Costa Mesa CA.

Within a week she had a job, shed go off to work shortly after we went to bed, worked nights cleaning a dental office, got home just in time for brekfast and to see us off and spent the day sleeping.

She tells this story everyt time she hears someone whining about how had it is to be a working mom, she also tell how on her first night there was a rerun of Donahue in which a woman said she had to stay at home on welfare to take care of her babies becuase they dead beat father wouldnt pay enough in child support.

Her babies were 21, 19 and 17, and she had a house bedroom house in orange county

Yea, that should have read 5 bedroom house

Nobody's saying a mom HAS to stay home, but if she can swing it, and feels it's best for the kids, then that's her choice.

LS, you have consistently said that if the mom is SAH and the dad 'has enough income' (whatever that its) that the court will order the dad to pay enough to continue that lifestyle 'for the children'. That has been your consistent message. However, now you are saying that it is the mom's decision about whether she should work or not.

You don't seem to see that in your example you are giving the financial freedom to the mother once the court has decided to supplement her lifestyle with her ex-husband's money 'in the name of the children' to allow her the luxury of being a stay at home mom. The husband has to pay the house note, the car note, groceries, etc, and the wife gets to decide if she wants to work. That is unreasonable.

What if the soon to be ex husband said,"I never got a chance to stay home with my kids. I want to stay home with them and let the ex-wife work now. She has a degree from Columbia, she can certainly get a good paying job, right?" Would you support the dad getting the house, the car, and the money from the mom to stay at home?

-Julie

Lovelysoul, my children were not used to me working. I was a SAHM until the end of my marriage. As someone who has gone through a pretty nasty divorce and many of the life changing events surrounding it, I can tell you that my children adapted beautifully to me going back to work and to the occasional sitter. Kids take their cues from their parents and if you have a mom whining that her life is over and he's going to pay for it, then yes, the kids will be hurt. If you have a mom who says that we'll get through this and make the best of it, the kids usually are pretty good. Kids are remarkably adaptable and I would much rather you favor a time period allowing the mother to get into a better position financially than to place all of the burden on the man. My youngest was 3 when I separated, my oldest 8. So you would be talking about another 15 years of my ex working so I could be home to do volunteer work or PTA activities?
Many schools now accomodate working parents and have events and teacher conferences at night making it possible for all parents to be involved. In fact, many PTA meetings are held at night for this reason.
One other thing, support does not always end at 18. If the child goes to college, support can go on until 21 or even some cases a little longer. I see nothing wrong with a man paying support for his children, but expecting him to work so that his ex-wife does not have to is not reasonable or fair and claiming its in the best interests of the children is a crock. Who decided that kids are best of with SAHMs? Who decides that a child would be so traumatized by mom going back to work after a divorce that a father can never rebuild his life? Please don't tell me the courts because its been my experience that the courts don't know shit about what's best for the kids. I've unfortunately dealt with the courts many times for many years because of my ex and his abuse towards me and the kids and let me tell you that never has the outcome of any case been about what is good for my kids.

Please, we're not talking about men who can't rebuild their lives. My physician friend still lives a very nice life. It doesn't sound like your ex would have ever been able to pay enough in child support for you to stay home full-time anyway. You made the most rational and practical choice for your children.

Look, I don't make the rules. The child support formulas are established and apply to everyone the same. If you make a high income, the support is going to be a lot more. Some exs will want to work and earn even more that that. Some won't and would rather stay home with their kids. I believe that choice is best made by the custodial parent, whether MALE or FEMALE, based on the needs of their particular children, not the court.

The court is not going to mandate drastic changes unless there's a drastic need (ie: a parent on drugs, abusive, etc). I know it may be frustrating to some who think, "My marriage has ended, so everything for everybody has to be different now!" But that's not the way the family court functions - rightfully so, in my opinion.

The court is going to divvy up the assets, assess the child-support, then leave it up to the parents, particularly the custodial parent, to determine what, if any, changes their children can adapt to. Not every child would adapt as easily as yours, Kristen, so for a the court to adopt a broad mandate that every SAHM must return to work, even when the child support payments, as formulated, would make that unnecessary, would bring total chaos to an already overburdened system ("at your next court hearing you must show proof you've been on 3 job interviews...". Yeah, let's give the attorneys even MORE reason to argue and come before the judge.

Bottom line, whether you think it's fair or not, the family court is going to attempt to keep theings the same as they were prior to divorce. If the kids have a home, a backyard, a swing set and a SAHM, that's hopefully what will continue, at least for awhile. If the kids have a two working parents...same thing. If kids have a stay-at-home...same thing. If the kids are being raised by wolves...same damn thing.

I don't know how many more times I can explain it. If you don't want your spouse to stay home with the kids, then don't agree to that arrangement. It is presumed that the couple made that choice together believing it best for their particular children - who they know best - and just because things get nasty in a divorce, the court tries to avoid drastically and abruptly changing the arrangement that currently exists in those children's lives.

So, whatever lifestle the couple is giving their children PRIOR to divorce will be the default standard, as long as the assets and income of the couple can sustain that.

Personally, I think that is really the only way the court can reasonably function, sorting through all the human misery, vindictiveness, and lies that are involved in a divorce. To start demanding drastic changes in every case will only create more trauma and hurt more children.

Lujlp - The part I liked best about your story was that your mom could move in with an aunt. Who presumably was there with you and your siblings at night while your mom worked. Not quite so easy when you have no family nearby or the ex won't let you leave the state to be near relatives. And an overnight sitter five times a week ain't cheap.

Not saying it can't be done, and you should be proud of your mom for doing it. But she had essential FREE help. (And possibly free rent). That's no small thing. That's major.

I'm tempted to blow this lovelysoul's sanctimony and myth out of the water. What an obnoxious waste of bandwidth.

But why? I already know the utterly subjective, arbitrary counter argument.

But I can't stop myself, at least this one last time. (I come from ten years in the family law trenches and the things I've seen and heard within it would curl your hair.)

The only thing the court tries to maintain FOR THE CHILDREN in a divorce is the style of life they know prior to that.

That is a lie.

See, lady, it's not even remotely about "the children". It's about the money and the best-interest clause is therefore a ruse. It is bullshit. Further, I think you lack the scope of perspective or the experience or the compassion or the sense to understand what's genuinely right for children.

Abolishing the divorce culture is. Abolishing family court is. Reforming American life is.

You keep pushing this rubbish about variable terms and subjective ethics and then when you're finally finished, if you indeed ever are, can't explain where any of the current system's operational principles -- which amount to the legal profession running the most corrupt racket known to exist in the land -- are justified constitutionally.

There you have it: You're wrong on children, wrong on society, wrong on reason, wrong on principle, and wrong on legal precedent. I can cite a hundred state and federal cases spanning two hundred years that assert that it is utterly unconstitutional to take a child from a parent (and then extort from that parent under penalty of debtor prison so s/he can see said child).

My God, is that even debatable?

On the other hand, you have all that sermonizing, apparently aimed at explaining the system so as to justify it. I'd be curious to learn where your paycheck comes from.

Lovelysoul,
It's the misandries such as you who are responsible for the denigration of fathers that reduces us to nothing more than paying visitors of their own children.

How frightening it is that you're a GAL, although admittedly, and given the arrogance you've displayed time and again, I'm not surprised in the least by it.

Do you you lie and misrepresent the truth and facts in your "unbiased" reports to the judge as you have here?

It's disgusting how you portray yourself as a defender of children when in reality; you destroy what's left of their families (by attacking their fathers) as a "guardian" ad litem who purports to be acting in defense of said children.

Your own words indict and convict you of your misandry.

"It's supposed to be the kids who benefit. It depends on whether the court think he's purposely underemployed. It doesn't mention his level of education but fixing jetskiis sounds kind of lame to me. $1100 for 2 kids isn't a huge amount of support. The idea is to try to keep their lives stable if possible.
Posted by: lovelysoul at September 1, 2009 10:39 AM

Fixing jet skis "sounds" kind of lame to you LS? That father does what he can to put food on the table and you fault him for it??? I went garbage picking to find and sell items to put food on my table, is that lame to you too?

Do you also fault me as you do Lavine while sitting on your sanctimonious throne in judgment of him? Who are you, or better said, who do you think you are that you publicly degrade a child's father whom you know little about?

In dispensing your "wisdom" you assert "The idea is to try to keep their lives stable if possible;" Please explain to me how a child support order that bankrupts fathers such as myself "stabilizes" their child's lives?
Further explain how it "stabilized" my daughter's life to have to stay in my "unheated" home during a brutally cold Ohio winter?"

While you're enlightening everyone here LS, can you further elaborate and explain why there are fathers living in homeless camps on the banks of the Ohio River if their "child support" orders were set with the intent to "stabilize" their children's lives?

” I don't disagree with you guys, it's just my gut instinct about that particular case. I live in FL and have lots of friends who are realtors, so I know they're hurting. Many are taking other jobs, but still the ones who really hustle are doing ok.

FL also attracts a lot of loafers - guys who like to do things like work on jetskiis so they can hang out by the water and drink beer with their buddies all day while they "tinker". That may not be true of this guy, but it seems to me he could find a better-paying job than that, even waiting tables or bartending, and the court must've agreed.
Posted by: lovelysoul at September 1, 2009 12:21 PM

Are there any limits to your blinding arrogance and thinly-veiled hatred of fathers? Tell me LS, why is it your “gut instinct” that ”something” is just wrong with this picture, and that there’s no way the truth is being told, is it because it involves a “father?”
So here’s a father doing whatever he can to earn money, but it’s not good enough for “you” is it. You feel the need to criticize his efforts don’t you?

LS, how many times has that “gut instinct” of yours caused you to write lies about fathers in your “unbiased” reports to judges just to make certain that another father didn’t get shared parenting or "worse" yet, full custody when necessary to protect the children from the mother?

” The idea, however mislead, was that neither home should be "lesser" than the other. Just because the mom stayed at home and couldn't earn as much as the husband didn't mean the kids shoud live in hovel at her house and a mansion at his. This isn't always fairly or equally applied, but the idea behind it was correct, in my view. Posted by: lovelysoul at September 2, 2009 3:57 PM

LS, tell me, was it by pure happenstance only that in your example, the mother lives in a hovel and the father a mansion? Or, was that an intentional misrepresentation of reality on your part to further propagate that lying MSM portrayal that fathers live in luxury while mothers in poverty post divorce? I think I know the answer to that one.

” I have a friend who is a physician. He is going back for a reduction in child support now, after 4 years, because his income, as a pathologist at a local hospital has dropped in the econonomy. His ex has primary custody, a nice house, and alimony, but he doesn't mind that. He is Asian and believes, rightfully so, that it is in his children's best interest to have a SAHM.” ---Lovelysoul

Assuming that story is indeed true, what’s the inference here: “His ex has primary custody, a nice house, his money and alimony, but he doesn't mind that?” Your off-the-wall comment makes no sense. Are we to believe that your new found friend gladly gave up his house, his income and his children and that he “doesn’t care” that he did so and doesn’t have a choice in the matter? Moreover, you claim that he’s going back for a reduction in child support; why?

It sounds to me that maybe he’s voluntarily under employed? Perhaps he should apply at other hospitals and demand that they pay him more money? Something seems amiss. Even stranger, is that originally, you supported the courts position of not modifying Lavine’s “child support” order and further lauded the court’s ability to “see through” his claims of employment hardship.

Yet, less than one day later, and after many others have spoken out against you, you present us with your “friend” whom you support, a pathologist who’s suddenly seeking a downward modification in his support order?

A friend that who despite losing his children, his salary, and paying for his ex’s “nice house”, he “doesn’t mind?” That’s a strange story indeed.

Even more strange, is that his ex is a SAHM and still is. I’m curious LS, is she an educated woman? It’s hard for me to believe that your friend didn’t marry within his socioeconomic class by marrying an educated woman.

What career did she put on hold to become a SAHM, was she a waitress, a bartender, or did she too “work” on jet skis? Or, if she’s indeed educated, then why isn’t her income imputed given that she’s voluntarily under employed? LS, my “gut instinct” says there’s something wrong with your story. Although I don’t disagree nor do I take issue with the pathological piece.

” I said $1100 doesn't seem that high for TWO (2) children. I also questioned what his education is. Nothing was said about that, and he could very well have a PHd for all any of us know.

I realize the family court is always villanized here - and everyone who is a part of it, including GALs like me, are accused of not truly working in the child's best interest - but my guess is that there is probably a valid reason the court decided this father was purposely underemployed, and could do better, and therefore his children should not suffer a loss of support. Posted by: lovelysoul at September 3, 2009 7:14 AM

LS, if you would be kind enough to continue educating us with your GAL expertise it would be greatly appreciated, because I’m very confused. I’m confused by what you claim versus what I’ve seen in not just my own case, but also in hundreds of others.

For example, you state

” I realize the family court is always villanized here - and everyone who is a part of it, including GALs like me, are accused of not truly working in the child's best interest - but my guess is that there is probably a valid reason the court decided this father was purposely underemployed, and could do better, and therefore his children should not suffer a loss of support.

It doesn't mean they always get it right, but usually, I find when all the facts are known, it's not quite the one-sided situation everyone here “overreacts” to. Not to say that there haven't been cases that were unjust, such as Sterling's, but I think Spartee at least acknowleged that the family court is dealing with mostly good people trying their best to sort through a whole host of human misery, and it's often hard to assess who is acting in good faith and who is trying to hurt someone else.

In the midst of that, there are the kids, who depend on that child support. They may attend a special school, which requires tuition, or have special needs that require extra therapy or treatment, or special talents and extracurriculars that are extremely important to them.

When at all possible, everyone that I have ever dealt with in the family court system tries to hold that stability for the children. It's not always possible - and fathers do get reductions - but if the court suspects a parent isn't acting in good faith, there will be outcomes like this. And the losing party will make it sound awful - that they were "robbed" or "abused" by the court - yet, when you know all the facts, it usually isn't the case. Rarely ever in my FL court system.
Posted by: lovelysoul at September 3, 2009 7:14 AM”

LS, the preceding is where I stopped reading last night. I could no longer stomach any more of the opinionated mindless propaganda that you’re attempting to portray as truthful and factual in “the best interests of “our” children.”

Also, I realized that when you wrote “and it's often hard to assess who is acting in good faith and who is trying to hurt someone else” above, you always imply (as my forthcoming quotes of your words will show) that “the father” is he who is always acting in "bad faith," right?

However, and for the sake of all the innocent children who suffer at the hands of the family court incarnates like yourself, I’ll continue to demonstrate that the true face of the “family courts” is portrayed at the “expense” of children through the efforts of misandrists like you.

You claim that it’s “not quite the one-sided situation everyone here “overreacts to?” Is that so, LS? And who besides you has deemed you the “expert” is such matters? What do offer in support of your position, your “gut instinct?”

Let’s start with facts, okay? And just for the record, you can visit http://www.glennsacks.com for links to some of the “facts” that I’ll quote. Unlike you, I don’t misrepresent an opinion as a factual claim by not providing supporting evidence.

1. Approximately 70% of all divorces are initiated by women. It’s said that the number one motivator is money, how factual the financial motivator part is, I don’t know. Just ask your doctor friend’s wife. She doesn’t work, she got the kids, a nice house and his salary that he “doesn’t mind” giving to her while she’s voluntarily under employed at his expense.

2. In 84% of cases nationwide, the mother is awarded sole custody of the children, and without any regard for how fit the father is as a parent.

3. Nationally, 57% of college students are women. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm
Not only do statistics show that the SAHM is increasingly becoming a person of the past, I personally don’t know of any moms who are such anymore. However, present child support statutes on a nationwide basis are written for such a person, and are used to bankrupt countless fathers. Given that statistic, I wonder who all of these SAHMs are that our current child support statutes are written for, and whom you so valiantly defend?

4. On a national level, the courts “routinely” deny fathers downward modifications in child support orders when in fact, it’s warranted.

The “family courts” are so out-of-control and thereby ordering that unwarranted and ridiculous amounts of child support be paid by fathers (in 84% of cases) that the federal government must state the obvious as it does under “Arrears Management” on page two in the forthcoming link where it states in part, “The best ways to avoid the accumulation of arrears are to set appropriate orders initially, modify orders via simple procedures promptly. Parents should share in the cost of supporting their children according to their ability.

Designing a system that establishes appropriate orders will encourage payment of child support. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2004/im-04-04a.doc
Do you comprehend what the courts are being told to do by the federal government? Set “reasonable” child support orders “initially.” Reasonable child support orders aren’t those that are based on the “gut feelings” of wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Those, who while perpetrating to be acting only “in the best interests of the children” involved when in reality they’re only out to punish the fathers in every case they’re involved in as GALs. And that, so as to exact their own vengeance and thereby self-serving punishment for the “perceived” transgressions committed by their own fathers and or ex-husband(s) against “them.”

Said simply LS, when one’s thoughts and actions as a GAL in a case are so thinly-veiled, unsubstantiated and baseless that they escape all logic and reason, it’s time to look at the motive of the woman behind them and ask if she’s being driven by scorn or some other personal vendetta whereby she wages war against all men through her “paid” position.

” Men were always expected to provide for their children. Yet, at the risk of getting attacked for being blunt, the men of this culture have turned the natural order on its head. They not only want equal, hands-on childrearing time, they want equal financial responsibility too.

Never before have fathers been this involved in day-to-day childrearing. It's a new phenomonen.
I'd like to believe that much of it grew out of a fresh understanding of paternal bonds, maybe as a result of the more sensitive 60s era, where guys could get in touch with their feelings and express love more freely, which is a good thing, but there also seems to be less sincere components to this shift.

The family court often sees fathers who go for custody primarily so they will not have to pay child support. I, personally, have had two cases as a GAL where a father took custody only to be extremely neglectful or abusive and the children had to be removed.

My sense was that these fathers didn't really want to be full-time dads as much as they wanted to hurt and "punish" the mother. This inevitably turns out badly for the child. Posted by: lovelysoul at September 3, 2009 9:31 AM”

As a father who is alienated from his daughter by an ex–wife who falsifies her daycare expenses to maximize my “child support” obligation at my daughter’s expense, I resent your hateful, anti-father vitriolic and baseless opinion that you misrepresent as fact.

Although I don’t dispute your claim that the family courts wrongfully view fathers seeking sole custody as doing so only to evade child support. Sadly, many courts regularly disregard the blatant facts of a case that support his position of sole custody only because it’s as you say how the Florida Courts view it; they see it as a father trying to avoid child support while ignoring the real facts of his case. I applaud you for being willing as one who’s “inside the system” to openly and publicly admit that as a guardian ad litem within the Florida courts.

Do you care to elaborate on the motives of those mothers who fight tooth and nail against “visitation” for their child’s fathers because it would lower the amount of “child support” they can extort through the courts and thereby support their own life style while the children involved go without?

Moreover, please elaborate as to what percentage of the 16% (nationally) of custodial fathers are so wicked and so devoid of love and adulation for their children that they only sought custody (as you claim) to avoid having to pay child support. If fathers seek custody only to escape having to pay child support, can’t we reasonably conclude that mothers (84% nationally) seek custody only so they can collect child support?

Taking that a step further, you’re obviously well aware as a GAL that the more “visitation” a father has with his children, the less he may have to pay in “child support.” That said, wouldn’t you agree that a fair amount of those 84% of mothers with sole custody have a financial incentive to deny “visitation” to their children’s fathers to keep their “child support” payments high?

Or, is such a wicked and vile deed only that which fathers only are capable of? Better said, would you concur that none of those 84% of mothers with sole custody nationwide would ever do such a thing, because when it comes to children, a mothers motive would never be driven by evil?

You allege that the aforementioned father took custody only to be “abusive or neglectful” and that your “sense” was that it was done so only to hurt and “punish” the mother.

Once again, you demonstrate that “senses”, “feelings” and “instinct” are the supporting foundations for the conclusions that you draw, and at the expense of good and loving fathers and their children.

A conclusion that your own words continually indict you on regarding your motive to
prove that all men/fathers=bad and women/mothers=good?

I’ll mention a statistical fact to rebut the aberration that you allege, because to be frank, I don’t believe anything that your feminist driven agenda highlights in your continual efforts to portray us loving fathers as evil people.

“According to the US Department of Justice, 70% of confirmed cases of child abuse and 65% of parental murders of children are committed by mothers.”
http://www.glennsacks.com/california_mothers_murders.htm

Perhaps this paragraph out of the following story is more indicative of the reality of a more common “child support” horror story?
“At 23, Channel Sisco got thousands of dollars in “child support” each month. She told the judge today her gangster friends smelled money, and that she's a victim of bad influences and bad choices. The real victim was Anthony Gill, a hard working innocent bystander, gunned down at a bus stop, shot from the car Sisco was driving.” http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Driver-Sentenced-in-Drive-By-Killing/xLQuCN4qbUy7WNGbzpUzgA.cspx

LS, you continue your marginalization of fathers (in the “best interests of the children" of course) with this,

Of course, there are also cases where that's not true, where the child is more bonded with the father or pretty well equally bonded with both, but, despite the changes in our culture, it is still more often the case that the child is bonded with the mother. That's not unusual, given that's it true in almost every other culture in the world, but HERE we cannot say it. Here we are supposed to only think in terms of equality now, whether it makes sense for the child or not. - Posted by: lovelysoul at September 3, 2009 9:31 AM

Please explain to me what about shared parenting (aka equal 50/50 custody) doesn’t make sense for children with two fit parents? Why shouldn’t a child have “equal” access to a good and loving father?

Seems to me the only “argument” you have to fall back on is that you could no longer justify your defense of “child support” orders whereby a woman utilizes the state to seize her ex husbands income to live off of until the “child” is emancipated at age 25 in some cases.

Equal rights means sharing equally in the costs of raising children. The days where the majority of fathers like me who are forced to pay 100% of the cost of rearing children must come to an end. Moreover, anymore, the “primary caregivers” in the majority of marriages I’m familiar with are the daycare center workers, not the mothers. I no longer know of any SAHMs, and I suspect that many others might say the same.

I’m curious LS, could it be that in some cases (and more than you’d care to admit) children are intentionally prevented from bonding with their fathers by unfit mothers who see a father’s bond with their children as an infringement upon and thereby a threat to their own bonds?

After all, reading through this thread, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to dispute your “expertise” in family law matters as a Florida GAL who’s undoubtedly as anti-father as they come.

” Despite how aggrieved some guys are about cases that do not go the father's way, the father's-rights movement has made substantial changes to the standard formula of childcare. Split custody is becoming the norm, and along with it, the family court is having to adjust to a new model.

Still, I don't think it's a good idea to entirely abandon the traditional model. It simply isn't always the best thing for the children. . - Posted by: lovelysoul at September 3, 2009 9:31 AM

You state that “the father's-rights movement has made substantial changes to the standard formula of childcare, split custody is becoming the norm, and along with it, the family court is having to adjust to a new model.”

Is that so Lovelysoul? That’s interesting, because as a father’s rights activist, your purported “facts” are new albeit welcomed news to me.

For example, please elaborate as to how the father’s rights movement has “made substantial changes to the standard formula of childcare.” That’s of particular interest to me given that I pay an additional $360/mo in “child support” to my ex to reimburse her “$600/month in full-time daycare costs” while my daughter attends school full time in the “4th grade.”

However, who am I to question you, given that you’re a “family law expert” as a guardian ad litem (GAL) in the State of Florida. In lieu of such, I’ll defer exposing that falsity to someone better known than I; Robert Franklin Esq. He writes (as he quotes another person) on Glenn Sacks Blog on August 23, 2009

” However, the shift in favour of fathers in court custody arrangements is a carbon copy of what has occurred in America, provoking a blaze of publicity and criticism from women's groups across the Atlantic. Cough. "The shift in favour of fathers...has occurred in America?" When? Did I fall asleep for 30 years? Just in case facts matter, U.S. Census Bureau data show that, in 1993, 84% of custodial parents were mothers. By 2005, that number had plummeted to...84%! So that's the "shift in favour of fathers" that occurred in the U.S. and that the U.K. is now aping. No wonder "women's groups" are critical.” http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4149

With that said LS, please cite the source you relied upon when you quoted that “fact.” Truth be told, I’m beginning to wonder if what Cousin Dave stated earlier isn’t applicable here: “

The legal profession, like politics, is attractive to petty people who enjoy pushing others around and avenging personal grievances. And family law is where most of that bottom 10th percentile winds up. It's chock loaded with people who have vendettas against the opposite sex, or against their own sex. - Posted by: Cousin Dave at September 2, 2009 7:35 AM

LS, in the piece above, you go on to state,

“Still, I don't think it's a good idea to entirely abandon the traditional model. It simply isn't always the best thing for the children.”-lovelysoul

It would appear that your expert opinion directly contradicts the ideas of the federal government, as the word “designing” infers that the “traditional model” you support continues to be a failure.

” Sometimes, it can't be avoided. Sometimes the childhood home must be sold and mom has to go back to work. But in a lot of SAHM situations, that isn't the case. The father's income is still sufficient to allow things to remain stable and consistent for the children. It may be a bit more of a stretch for the father, but usually, it is best for the kids.

I wish more dads would stop thinking about themselves and consider that. Like my friend, the physician, who has to stretch his income further now to support two homes, but he doesn't resent it because he knows his kids are getting the absolute best care possible.

They are home with their mom where they've always been. That's the life he always wanted for them. The divorce has had as little impact on their lives as possible. They are happy and thriving. In a few years, they'll be off to top colleges and the struggle will be worth it.
Posted by: lovelysoul at September 3, 2009 11:20 AM

LS, you say, “It may be a bit more of a stretch for the father, but usually, it is best for the kids.” Admittedly, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for me to remain professional as your misandry becomes more and more obvious. Have you no shame?

I find it incredulous that as a GAL for the State of Florida who I’m willing to bet has never recommended that a father be given sole custody, you have the audacity to make a comment as hateful and degrading towards fathers as this is and in a public forum,

“I wish more dads would stop thinking about themselves and consider that.” Posted by: lovelysoul at September 3, 2009 11:20 AM

” If Daddy feels shafted at having to be the one to leave the home in a divorce, and see his kids less, then, by God, Mom is going to have to pay too - give HER less time with the children. Make her work! Throw the kids in daycare. Doesn't matter if it's hurts them because it's FAIR!!! It's not biased or stereotyped to recognize a bad idea. Posted by: lovelysoul at September 4, 2009 10:34 AM

And those discriminatory words were typed by a woman who we’re expected to believe would be truthful and unbiased in her reports that she submits (as a guardian ad litem GAL) to the judge presiding over a custody trial in the State of Florida. It’s a sickening and wanton display of the anti-father bias, hate and prejudice that’s used to financially decimate one father after another; this while chanting the false mantra “it’s in the best interests of children” when in reality, the destruction of a father’s life in gleefully delivered at the hands of GALs like Lovelysoul at the “expense” of our children.
What an ugly and vile thing for anyone, but especially a GAL who CANNOT seek the best interests of the children when she can’t see past her own blinding hatred of fathers.
In the hundreds of cases I’ve seen, not once has any father I’ve worked with wanted to “get back” at and “punish” the mother of their children. In fact, and in every case, they just want to see and talk to in their children. Even the father who had $1 left of his unemployment check left each week after his “child support” obligation was seized. His only request to me was “please help me see my daughter.”
Strange, how every father I’ve ever worked with is the exact opposite of the type father you continue to denigrate and bash with every hate filled sentence you type at your keyboard. There are many intelligent people who post here, rest assured that you’re fooling none.

LS, what you stand for and represent is vile. It’s persons such as you whose hands have played a role in creating this wicked and degenerative society that continues to attack and denigrate fathers, and that will ultimately destroy fatherhood itself if your juggernaut of anti-father vitriol isn’t stopped.

Your hatred of fathers in your quest to rally support in your never-ending defense of father-funded welfare (aka “child support”) doesn’t (and won’t) bode well in the company of the intelligent people here.

Those whose presence you’re obviously unaccustomed and uncomfortable being in the midst of, hence your inability to answer the direct questions that Julie and others have presented to you.

Your intellectual inability to grasp that a judge’s power to force “child support” orders upon those fathers who’re financially incapable of meeting such demands is being confused with society’s approval of the same.

This leads to your inability and or unwillingness to answer some very direct questions about such. Hence, you continue to view and therefore rely on attacking fathers as your only available recourse in rebuttal to the legitimate and sincere questions being asked of you.

My BIL is a divorce attorney, and he has a service on his computer that can look up anyone's assets. He has this because it's not uncommon for people (most often husbands) to claim they have nothing when it can clearly be shown that they do. That certainly doesn't go over well with a judge. - Posted by: lovelysoul at September 3, 2009 6:17 PM

Once again LS, you denigrate men; tell me again how it’s possible that none other than a fool could believe that you’re capable of acting in an unbiased capacity in the best interest of a child as a GAL in the State of Florida?

” The family court functions the way it does to keep from adding any more chaos to an already chaotic, frightening situation if this can be avoided…” The father's income is still sufficient to allow things to remain stable and consistent for the children. It may be a bit more of a stretch for the father, but usually, it is best for the kids. I wish more dads would stop thinking about themselves and consider that.”
Posted by: lovelysoul at September 3, 2009 11:20 AM

Your continual and unwarranted attack on fathers and misandry aside LS, how does stealing up to 65% (and sometimes more) of a father’s net monthly income to support his ex-wife; whereby he’s without enough of his own money to support his new family after she kicked him out of his first (70% of the time) provide for a “stable” and “consistent” environment for his precious children?

” Like my friend, the physician, who has to stretch his income further now to support two homes, but he doesn't resent it because he knows his kids are getting the absolute best care possible. Posted by: lovelysoul at September 3, 2009 11:20 AM

Is that it LS? Is that answer? All men simply need to “fall in line,” do as you say, and as “your friend” so lovingly models, financially support two households despite there not being nearly enough money to do so, because few have six-figure incomes like “your friend.” Then smile, and repeat after you that their kids are getting the best care possible because as fathers, they’re incapable of providing it; is that the answer you’re proposing?

It’s apparent that not only aren’t we fathers not buying your “my friend” stories, neither are two other readers whose voices carry more weight than does a man’s; Kristen and Julie’s.

It’s apparent to me now that you’re morally bankrupt. You have no business acting in any capacity on behalf of any child because you’re wholly incompetent to do so.

Sadly, you continue to destroy the lives of many innocent Florida children by wrongfully using your position as an unqualified GAL to discharge your anti-father agenda under the guise of “the best interests of the children.”

Let’s start with the fact that women file for divorce in 70% of cases. We fathers did NOT ask to have our children ripped out of our lives by women who are “thinking of themselves.”

We fathers did not asked to be kicked out of the homes that we bought, we didn’t asked to be turned into paying “visitors” of our own children, and we didn’t asked to be forced under the threat of arrest and incarceration to financially support our ex-wives and her lifestyle for the next 18-25 years through state sanctioned theft that’s euphemistically known as “child support.”

Even worse is that the states profit off of said payments through Title IV Federal Incentive matches.

Just for the record ma’am, I was ordered to pay “child support” and alimony to a woman who was and is more educated than I, and at the time had earned more in one year than I ever did. My “child support” order bankrupted me and caused me to lose everything I’d spent a lifetime building.

You spew your falsehoods about the family courts and law as if it were facts. Don’t tell me that the courts divide property equitably when I was given nothing after my property trial and in fact was looted for nearly $70,000.

You make such foolish claims as “you’re not allowed to hide assets.” Is that so? Then explain for me why my ex was not required to turn over discovery in two separate trials?

In your delusional thinking, you incorrectly believe that people read what you say and thereby believe those fantastic lies that you continue telling about family court and the law. You’re fooling no one but yourself, and the populace isn’t as foolish or naïve as you wished they’d be.

I’d have more respect for you if you’d simply tell the truth, and that being; you have an axe to grind and you do so at the expense of precious and innocent children while as you discharge your duties as a one of Florida’s GALs.

I suspect that you wrongfully and maliciously attack every good and loving father who has the misfortune of having you as the “guardian” ad litem who at the expense of his children uses them to punish him for the perceived transgressions that were committed by your own father, an ex, or both or other males, whoever they may be.

In one post after another, you proudly denigrate men and fathers in this very public forum. That’s deplorable, despicable and wholly unacceptable for a “public servant” to do such a thing.

Do you know what’s far worse? You see nothing wrong with anything you’ve said or done. You’ve lied and you’ve misrepresented facts as you publicly and wrongfully shamed fathers. However, the worst part is something you yourself mentioned; pathology.

I’ve spent a considerable amount of time reading through this entire thread and I’ve drawn the conclusion based on what you’re said that I think there exists a very real possibility that you suffer from some type of affliction that renders you completely unfit to act as a GAL for any child. The thought of you influencing a judge’s decision is the most disturbing part of all.

To Kristen and Julie, please allow me to clarify my position. I believe that reasonable amounts of “child support” (not ex-wife or ex-girlfriend support) is warranted in many cases.

However, I also believe that both mother and father should share equally in the costs of raising their children. Moreover, I strongly believe that custody should be shared 50/50 between two fit parents.

What I don’t support is the forced father-funded-welfare and misandry that LS advocates. Contrary to her misrepresentation of the facts, and as I suspect you’re already aware, Lavine’s story is the norm, not an aberration as LS would have us believe.

I would encourage anyone who wants to truly make a difference on behalf of children to consider volunteering for CASA in your area. http://www.nationalcasa.org/
The children need advocates who truly care…

Amy, due to the length of this post, I’ve waited until now to post it. If I’ve unknowingly violated any or your rules with this post due to its content or length, please accept my apology and remove it if required.

Sincerely,

Tony Fantetti
Ohio Council for Fathers Rights
http://www.ocffr.org