Is this a fair statement re: child support

[Peanutsdad]

The reason so many men are taking it in the backside now,, is very simple: Our fathers generation as a whole skipped out on the supporting kids after divorce.

Do you really think such harsh cs laws and enforcement laws just came to be in a vacuum?? We are paying for our fathers sins,, plain and simple. My own biofather was a deadbeat. He walked away without a backward look. Never paid a dime in cs, never helped out one iota. I was more fortunate than some, my stepdad after marrying my mother, stepped up to the plate and became the dad that my brother and I deserved. To this day, my mother has never said a harsh word about my biodad,, not once, not ever. Not even when I questioned several things after I was grown. I have a lot of respect for my mother for that. She worked as a waitress working two jobs to stay off welfare until she could finish college.



Personally, I would feel better about it if there WAS an accountability of cs spent, but there isnt. As far as seeing the issue being unfair,, yes I've seen it both ways. I personally know of moms that are divorced, are the ncp, and pay guideline support on 8-10 bux an hour wages to cp dads who make 60-90k. Two of these moms I'm thinking of also share an apartment simply because they cannot afford to live. I know dad's in the same situation. As far as what I paid,, it was guideline, my ex is ordered to pay guideline. The difference is,, I paid,, she quit her job. She has no one depending on her, I am the sole support of my two older children. My ex faces contempt charges that are upcoming.


As far as fathers being involved in their kids lives after divorce,, well my friend, you and I will have to agree to disagree. I still maintain that more fathers are involved with their children today than were 20-30 years ago post divorce. In the past, ( prior to cs enforcement), many fathers didnt support, and were as a rule either excluded from their childrens lives or walked away.


Family court laws and cs laws reflect the past events in society. The severity of them is directly due to past events. Does it make the laws fair today? Or balanced? Nope,, not a bit,, BUT....until moderate reason is applied to family court, it isnt going to change. Until parents step up and take the responsibilities of their kids and stop abusing the system, nothing changes.

I do not disagree at all about the bias. It's there and its real. There was a point in time with divorce, it was the norm tho. Fathers worked outside the home, mothers as a rule did not. They had no job skills. Therefor, fathers were made responsible financially. Laws lag behind sociatal norms. There's no way around that. What needs to happen, ( and is actually happening slowly), is a change to reflect the sociatal norms that exist now: both parents tend to work outside the home, both parents need to be equally in a childs life,, for most cases. I think we all can agree there ARE cases when a child should be protected from one parent or the other.

[Bolivar OH]

BACKGROUND:
   1. I paid over $30,000 in child support in 2003.
   2. I am constantly denied visitation.
   3. I have spent over $85,000 in legal fees over the past few years.
   4. The judge/magistrate just reprimands NC.

I am trying to spend more time with my son.  The courts feel DAD is nothing but a wallet and provides no nurturing to ones child.

My child has been taken from me and I pay for this process.  This to me is immoral.

I am not trying in any way to wane or wax philosophically the nature of Child Support.  I am merely giving realistic facts which I have encountered with the government regulations concerning my affairs with my son.

[Peanutsdad]

Nor am I. I merely point out WHY you are getting screwed now.

It has nothing to do with philosophy, it has to do with history. The reality you face is a direct result of history. But of course, lets not bother learning from the past. Right?

As is happening with cs today,, so will happen with visitation denial tomorrow. We already are seeing custodial parents losing custody over visitation denial. Slowly but surely,, the weight of cases for visitation denial mount pressure on the legal system.

You want to see change? Keep filing contempts. It may not happen for you, it may not happen for me, but someone will see it happen. We have seen it here on these boards.

As for your assertation of paying 30k in 2003 in cs,, what % of your income was that? Was that a base rate of cs? Or was there arrearages?

How many times have you filed a motion for contempt on the denied visits?

After spending 85k in legal fees, have you learned how to file a motion for contempt?

[Bolivar OH]

>>As for your assertation of paying 30k in 2003 in cs,, what % of your income was that?
>>Was that a base rate of cs? Or was there arrearages?
     1. That's based on my income for 2003.
     2. I also paid $24k in spousal support in 2003.
     3. Yes, I make over 6 figure income.

>>How many times have you filed a motion for contempt on the denied visits?
     1. zero – How much more do you think I should spend on this?
                    (The 85k includes divorce cost.)

I am not interested in a frivolous back and forth banter .

I am searching/looking/researching for empirical information on CS and visitation issues.

As for my mistakes.  My biggest mistake was to turn my divorce over to another person (ATTORNEY(s)) to take care of my interests.  If I learned one thing it is to MANAGE ONE'S OWN DIVORICE.  I am now living with the repercussion of my misjudgment.

My problem at the present moment is assimilating all of the information and dealing with my internal emotions about the situation.

If anyone has easy to understand information on CS and Visitation Issues, please let me know.

Thanks

[NeverGiveUp]

I've read through these posts and this is what I've seen.

Many people are pointing at the past and blaming "dead beat dads" for the injustice that is CS today.  I hardly think that's fair.  Let's not forget that in the past fathers had it even worse than they do now (hard as it may be to believe).  Basically they were ripped from their children's lives and awarded no parental rights at all.  Many objected through the only means they had available (they stop paying).  That prompted the need for support enforcement, which actually didn't work either.  Fathers became so frustrated with the system that they disappeared, or willingly faced prosecution.  Only then did the courts pull their heads out of their a**'s and recognize that keeping fathers involved was the best way to ensure support was continued.  On that note I argue, stop telling us that 4 days a month is sufficient to being a parent and kids will get the support they need.

Next, we all seem to be missing a fundamental point here.  No one is looking at the intact family to decide how things are going in their home, unless it's so bad that neglect is present.  Nor would we dare. It's a double standard and a clear violation of our civil rights. You don't even have to disagree with CS to see it's true.

Lastly, you can't support something like this half way.  You're either in favor of it or opposed to it.  Let me ask, what would we do to an intact family that couldn't provide for the family?  Would we take the children and place them in foster care until their parent(s) could provide them with food and shelter? Would anyone complain about it when it happened?  I doubt it.  It is after all in the best interest of the child(ren).  So let's extrapolate this.  What if we were to say that the parent with most custodial time was responsible for that share of the support, instead of the other way around?  If a parent was unable to provide for themselves and their children, we simply place the children in the care of the other parent for more time, thereby putting emphasis on the noble idea of obtaining adequate employment to support yourself and your children.  Boy I can hear the screaming now . . . What kind of an asinine notion is that.  Then divorced parents would be like everyone else.

By the way, save any arguments regarding stay at home parenting.  It isn't in place for 80% of the intact families so there's no base for supporting it in divorced families.  Also, let's keep dead beet dads out of this as well.  They are the NOT the norm, give a father the right to have his children and watch how he'll work twice as hard to support them. Just like mom!

[NeverGiveUp]

I am not the exception.  In the past few years I've gotten to know many fathers being burned by our system.  They are great dads, ALL of them, and I've yet to meet a one that wouldn't gladly take his children 100% of the time and ask for nothing from their X's.  That's right, we'd exchange money for our children, happily.

How many CP's do you know that are willing to do that?

[Kitty C.]

'If anyone has easy to understand information on CS and Visitation Issues, please let me know.'

Good luck, because we're ALL looking for the same thing!  But the reason for all the questions is not to banter back and forth, but to be able to assist you in your quest for information.  The reason why you can't get any rock solid information is because every state is different, every court is different, and every case is different.  It's a crap shoot for anyone at any given time.  

And specific issues regarding your case is the ONLY way to even possibly give advice on what anyone might 'think' would be reasonable.  What works for one may or may not work for another, depending on the jurisdiction, judge, case and state laws.  

The reason why you will never get a black-and-white answer is because these are not B&W issues.  We're talking humans here and when you throw the human aspect into the mix, it's ALL grey, all open to interpretation.  Even if your state CS gudelines demand 25%, if the judge in your case wants to deviate from that and order 28%, that is his perogative.

But you're right on about managing one's own divorce!

[NeverGiveUp]

I agree.  It's different in every state, in every county, in every court.  Locate a fathers rights group in your area and attend the meetings.  They'll know the court in your area and maybe even the judge.  They also have no motivation to leed you on or feed you falls info.

[impressivedjq]

I will say this" NOTHING IS LEGAL UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT CAN SEE YOU!!!!"  Are we still in America????  x(

[Peanutsdad]

>I will say this" NOTHING IS LEGAL UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT CAN
>SEE YOU!!!!"  Are we still in America????  x(



???????? I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.