fighting

[krazyfamily_6]

You are not paying support for her other children, just yours.  

[Jade]

>no they shouldnt let her have them because shes too lazy to
>work. I and my wife have to work to take care of our 2
>children and pay for my support.  I don't get the option to
>stay home...why should she get the money and have more time
>with my children? That is complete bias.


Because her husband can afford for her to.  Her husband is also smart enough to realize that it wouldn't pay for her to work.  5 kids in daycare will cost more than what she would make.  

Lazy?  What an ignorant statement.  And just goes to show how little value you place on a parent staying home and raising children.  

[Jade]

>Every reply i have gotten form jade is a mother biased reply.
>You have to remember the courts are still gender biased and
>ihave been fighting it for 6 years...I thought getting advice
>from a site like this would be differant...


No, it is a stay at home parent bias.  I would say the same if the parent who stayed home is the father.  

You are reading a gender bias where there is none.  

[Jade]

>oh and my children have neevr set foot in a daycare so its
>not a matter of daycare or her


If it is because the stepmom is the one taking care of them while you are at work, the courts should side with the mother.  Sorry, but the stepmom is not the mother.  

And before you go reading a gender bias, if the situation was reversed and the father was a sahp and it was the stepdad who was taking care of the children while the mother was at work, the courts should side with the father.

[Davy]

Hey Mist (and you too Jaded) ... knock off your crap !!

Most of the world certainly does not agree with the way YOU WANT it to.

As a matter of fact (over a very long period of years) far more would agree with the OP.  

The CORRECT action in this matter would be for the mother to be reduced to EOW visitation and for her to start supporting all facets of her children's lifes and be proud of her children in all ways instead of running to attorneys and courts to harm and hamper their endeavors.

[Jade]

>he has had 3 more children...why shouldn't the expenses come
>out of his paycheck? why do his 3 children effect me? Whether
>its cheaper for her for daycare because of her 3 more children
>or not i shouldn't have to pay for them. He should be paying
>for HIS children and her inability to work because of them.
>
>


Clearly, you are not getting the point.  

The point is that YOUR portion of the daycare costs for YOUR children would be MORE than what you pay in child support.  

Your ex's husband is picking up the mother's portion of the child support for YOUR children because she is working at raising 5 children.  

He is smart enough to recognize that it would actually cost him MORE money if his wife had to work and they had to put ALL of the children in daycare.  

Your child support isn't paying for HIS children.  But YOURS.  

[Jade]

>Hey Mist (and you too Jaded) ... knock off your crap !!

Handslapping (and namecalling) rarely works.  But if you want to act like you are in grade school, feel free.

>
>Most of the world certainly does not agree with the way YOU
>WANT it to.
>

Got any stats to back that up?



>As a matter of fact (over a very long period of years) far
>more would agree with the OP.  

Again, got any stats to back that up?  And I am not talking about research.  I am talking about a poll of the world.

>
>The CORRECT action in this matter would be for the mother to
>be reduced to EOW visitation and for her to start supporting
>all facets of her children's lifes and be proud of her
>children in all ways instead of running to attorneys and
>courts to harm and hamper their endeavors.

The correct action would be for the courts to take the best interests of the children into consideration.  And being home with a sahp (regardless of gender) is better than being home with a stepparent (regardless of gender) while the parent is working.  

[Davy]

Again and again and again ....

You are simply text book and not in reality making up assumptions that simply don't relate to 2dvldog.  

He said the mother started out with primary custody (aka mommy bias) and the father has fought thru the bias much to the gain of the children.

The father said his children had never seen the inside of a day care center and you simply don't know the salary level the lazy mom might demand if she would work to support her five children.

You also assume the father's CS $$$  is strictly being used to support his children.  Very doubtful since there is no acountibility in the system.

Here is reality.  The money received from the father's labor is for the gain of his children...not for the gain of an exwife or another man's children including the exwife's new husband, attorneys and judges.
 
The children are currently thriving in the custodial arrangement, school, socially and in outside activities.  The children need to be protected from the mother.

You should not assume these children's, the other children, or all the adults are best served by cowing down to the mother's misguided ego.  

[2dvldog]

Thank you

[2dvldog]

No actually 80% of the time its me taking care of them as a result of creative work scheduling on my part. And I have 2  other children that they need to be with as well.