What are your issues with child support. Fair or unfair.

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by ScottHallWithAPick

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by ScottHallWithAPick

You guys disgust me in this. This is NT. None of yall are millionaires and are giving 46K a month to a kid. Those are the ones who should complain. You a bold faced lie if you say you know more women abusing the system spending on themselves than men abusing the system not paying a dime for 18 years

scott i agree with u on a lot of topics, but u lose absolutely nothing with agreeing for this system to be monitored closely-like I said I have NO kids, my mother busted her %$$$ %@% to raise three successful kids, I would rather adopt than have kids of my own I have nothing to gain by arguing for child support reform

I agree, everything should be monitored but the things said in here are absurd. So if a woman loses her job the father shouldn't have to pay support anymore? Yeah %@%* that kid this is the time where it least needs money.

if a woman loses her job, and has kids she should make an attempt to get a new job---- the motivation to do so isn't there is thee woman has a bloody paycheck coming in every month

and if the woman doesnt have a job she shouldn't be the primary caretaker--all i want is for the court to consider financial effort on the part of the mother i dont think thats too much to ask for-it would thwart the motivation for a lot of women to use children as a meal ticket

 

[chokeonsmoke]

###$ child support

 

[noskey]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by ScottHallWithAPick

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey


scott i agree with u on a lot of topics, but u lose absolutely nothing with agreeing for this system to be monitored closely-like I said I have NO kids, my mother busted her %$$$ %@% to raise three successful kids, I would rather adopt than have kids of my own I have nothing to gain by arguing for child support reform

I agree, everything should be monitored but the things said in here are absurd. So if a woman loses her job the father shouldn't have to pay support anymore? Yeah %@%* that kid this is the time where it least needs money.

if a woman loses her job, and has kids she should make an attempt to get a new job---- the motivation to do so isn't there is thee woman has a bloody paycheck coming in every month

and if the woman doesnt have a job she shouldn't be the primary caretaker--all i want is for the court to consider financial effort on the part of the mother i dont think thats too much to ask for-it would thwart the motivation for a lot of women to use children as a meal ticket

The whole first sentence there, my family disagrees. Maybe it's not motivation for every woman to get a job, but I know damn sure my mom was busting her %!# trying to get a job when she lost hers, regardless of getting child support. CS wasnt nearly enough to live off of, as it isnt in most cases. If it is enough for a woman and her child to live off of, they need to get a new damn place to live.

I somewhat agree with the 2nd sentence you wrote though. But it's always a case-by-case basis in my eyes. For example, my mom was out a job for like 6 months and still took care of me better than my dad ever would have.

The whole side of women using children as meal tickets shouldnt really hold as much weight as it does in your guys' arguments since that happens far less often than y'all imagine it does. It's like saying that because a few cops out there harass minorities for no reason, all cops do.

 

[gambit215]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Capricorn1229

Originally Posted by gambit215

At the end of the day, its 2011 a woman CHOOSES to get pregnant. IF you CHOOSE to keep a child from a man you know will not make a good father, dont go to court FORCING him to give you money for a child he didnt want in the first place, thus alienating a child from his father and creating another statistic for society. The sad thing is minorities get trapped in this cycle....

It's not even worth the keystrokes. You can't tell a man like this nothing. Forcing him to provide money for his seed that he squirted in her probably while on TEAM RAW but it's her choice to get pregnant?

Oh okay.

I'm a strong proponent for people NOT having too many children-our world is overpopulated but if you do decide to bring children into this world you better be $%$% ready to give dedicate your entire energy into making sure their lives are as comfortable as possible

I think what gambit was tryna say is women have an equal say/action into rearing and producing children (pause)-minus the act of rape this is the truth

The one thing that has empowered women in the last 50 years is birth control.....At a time women only had abortion in extreme conditions which could resulted in you dying  or just having the child back in the day, regardless of the relationship men would often marry women they had children with often due to shame but shame is extinct in todays society (turn to Worldstar if you need proof), anyway being that woman 99% are the ones carrying the babies, there are methods besides condoms, withdrawal or rhythm method, now theres Yaz, nuva ring,  IUD, Depo shot so yea, just bustin in a chick should not make you a father anymore. Accidents happen, theres plan B which you can go to any local CVS or Walmart, BTW wont birth control be free soon? So yea women CHOOSE if they want to have a child.  As a woman you do yourself, your child and society a huge disservice when you bring a child into the world in which you had no father to raise him with in the first place. 

 

[a55a5in11]

from my experience. my dad payed my mom $800 and i would never have clothes or shoes that fit me while i was growing. always ate hamburger helper. but my mom and step dad always got new clothes went on vacations and ate steaks. if i needed a haircut i would have to ask my dad to go get me one. its a smart system but men pay way to much for it.

 

[me no pass]

interesting article...the comments are even better

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/27/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/

[h1]Man Receives Oral Sex, Ordered to Pay Child Support[/h1]
2011-02-27
By Sarah Berent

So, a man sued his ex-girlfriend for fraud and emotional distress after she secured a court order demanding he pay child support for their two year-old daughter. The reason? This woman saved his semen after performing oral sex and secretly impregnated herself. No, this is not a new plotline of absurd television show One Tree Hill but actual events that formed the basis of a 2005 legal battle in Illinois.

Although this case is six years old and garnered some media attention at the time, we recently came across it on Professor Jonathan Turley’s blog and couldn’t resist an opportunity to discuss it.

But before we get to the legal issues presented in this case, namely how a man can be ordered to support a child when his sperm was used without his knowledge, the soap opera-esque facts surrounding this situation deserve to be explained in greater detail. Trust us.

It all began when Dr. Sharon Irons (an internist) and Dr. Richard Phillips (a family practitioner) began dating in January 1999. Dr. Irons led Dr. Phillips to believe she was divorced and within a few months, they became engaged. According to Dr. Phillips, the two discussed the possibility of having children and he made clear his intentions: that he did not want children until after they were married and any pre-marital sex would require the use of condoms. Throughout the course of their relationship, they engaged in only three instances of oral sex: they never went “all the way.â€

 

[blackmagnus514]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Why is it that once a child turns 18 CS is no longer required, but a 30 y/o woman who divorces her husband needs alimony?

this

 

[ruxxx]

Damn that story is CRAZY.

 

[lunchroomclassic]

The only thing that sucks about child support is the person paying the child support has no control over how that money is spent. Could be a crap mom/dad blowing the money on unnecessary things.

You should have to prove to the court that every dime is spent on the child, and if not, the amount paid gets lowered.

If I were paying child support I would be salty if my BM bought even just a $1 cheeseburger with that money.

 

[AZwildcats]

Originally Posted by blackmagnus514

Originally Posted by voodoo

Why is it that once a child turns 18 CS is no longer required, but a 30 y/o woman who divorces her husband needs alimony?

this

I've never gotten a good answer to this question. Someone please enlighten me

 

[gllahone84]

No kids ftw

 

[scotthallwithapick]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by ScottHallWithAPick

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey


scott i agree with u on a lot of topics, but u lose absolutely nothing with agreeing for this system to be monitored closely-like I said I have NO kids, my mother busted her %$$$ %@% to raise three successful kids, I would rather adopt than have kids of my own I have nothing to gain by arguing for child support reform

I agree, everything should be monitored but the things said in here are absurd. So if a woman loses her job the father shouldn't have to pay support anymore? Yeah %@%* that kid this is the time where it least needs money.

if a woman loses her job, and has kids she should make an attempt to get a new job---- the motivation to do so isn't there is thee woman has a bloody paycheck coming in every month

and if the woman doesnt have a job she shouldn't be the primary caretaker--all i want is for the court to consider financial effort on the part of the mother i dont think thats too much to ask for-it would thwart the motivation for a lot of women to use children as a meal ticket

Look at the jobless NTer thread. Just cause you try doesn't mean you get one. I remember my mom was jobless for a bit and thanks to my grandma I always had a meal at night. And your second statement you act like men are lining up to take care of their kids. If that was the case child support wouldn't exist so heavily. I WISH everytime a woman loses her job, the father steps up and takes over but how often does that happen?Oh yeah %@%+ alimony.

 

[thenewjs23]

Originally Posted by ScottHallWithAPick

You guys disgust me in this. This is NT. None of yall are millionaires and are giving 46K a month to a kid. Those are the ones who should complain. You a bold faced lie if you say you know more women abusing the system spending on themselves than men abusing the system not paying a dime for 18 years  

Sorry to say it but all peps that pay actually pay and actually know a girl that pays. Even her childs father is abusing the system. She could easily get them but shes in the Navy and is in a sea going command so she cant ask. Dude gets $1500 for one child. Funny thing is that his mother takes care of the child. He told his mother she ran off and cant be found. I dont say women I say there are custodial parents abusing the system. Its set up to allow it to happen.

 

[nycposite]

Originally Posted by air max 87

Originally Posted by DipsetGeneral

Unfair, people who don't even love each other, nor the children, are being forced by the government to fork over money to the estranged mother and child every month?!

Whoever has custody of the child should take care of the child.

ekkk, its not so black and white.
what if the parent was caught cheating, or just wasnt a good parent/spouse ? 

it takes 2 to conceive a child, it should take 2 to support said child. 

im all for child support, i think its needed, what i DONT agree about child support is that the parent uses it at his or her liking.

it pisses me off when i see a parent ( more so the mom ) dressed up and the child in rags/looking dirty

 

I feel child support is needed. You have people that dont do anything for their child. I just feel that child support is ran all ^%&$*# up. I had to pay child support for 3 year

($1200 monthly). Like some have already said it should be case by case. I had to pay all that money on top of me already doing for my son (clothes, kicks whatever he needed).

while his mother just sat on her ***. Then when I went to court to get it reduced the judge wasn't trying to hear anything or look at receipts and told me its my responsibility to take

care of my son. Yea I am suppose to support my son but damn sure don't need to be support his mother lazy ***. All is good now since now I have my son. Child support is good

but needs to be handle better

 

[jusdre86]

Originally Posted by blackngold1z

Are we really trying to justify that child support shouldn't be paid? Come on son
Now alimony on the other hand is a different story...

my sentiments exactly
  

 

[nubiandisaster]

I think the child should live the same or similar lifestyle as the father or the mother. whoever makes the most money
its not fair to have children, drop off a couple of bucks to make sure they have the bare minimum to the child.

if you were interested in being a real father, it wouldn't matter to you if you had to give 90% of your paychecks away to your child.

 

[numbah1grimey]

I will chime in. According to my moms, she told my dad to give her $50 a week, prior to placing him on child support. That wouldve been about $200 a month. My moms has always worked. My pops made great money but, like most young fathers, he wanted to do his thing. Which was all swell but, you must keep in mind that you have created another being. Well, moms put him on child support while he still ran the streets. He had a daughter (my sister) from another woman and, she put his #$* on child support too. Now, both my sister and I are over 18 and, he loves us to death. That money olds no weight once it's spent and, that child is an adult. It was odd hearing my pops say "I love you, son" a few years ago. We are inseperable. My moms NEVER told me not to acknowledge or speak to my dad. The n_ spit me out. We look IDENTICAL. I would walk to the corner store in my hood and dudes would be like "Oh, thats lil such, and such". He couldnt deny this one. Once these guys grow older and have done all their dirt and street running, when that child grows older and said father realizes they havent built a true relationship with their kid, that's when the regret sets in. Some of these kids turn out to be extraordinary individuals and, that father sulks in his sorrow like "Damn, I wish I was there for my child".

   Now, I CANT keep my father off my line. Dude calls me everyday, lol. However, like dudes said prior to me, every case is different. My moms raised me on her own with help from his funds. My moms was the reverse factor when it came to what was made out of those CS allotments. She was the one w/older, worn clothes, I was the one in Bugle Boy, British Knights, Osh kosh, Jordan, Nike, Fubu, Polo, Hilfiger, etc and, pops new this. My moms has worked full time, 8-5, at the same establishment for 20+ years despite my dad. She was a working PRIOR to my birth, so what does that tell you? Some of these single parent mothers DO work and DO need assistance. It's all case by case. Fortunately for me, my moms gave me the world despite my pops absence and now in present time, the dude LOVES my presence. Funny how the table turns.

 

[hellaones]

My brother pays a crazy amount, like $1200 for just one and I got a homeboy from high school who pays for 3 and doesn't even pay a third of what my brother pays

 

[jordanhead718212]

The cluelessness of some of the people in here is disgusting

 

[mytmouse76]

Originally Posted by NubianDisaster

I think the child should live the same or similar lifestyle as the father or the mother. whoever makes the most money
its not fair to have children, drop off a couple of bucks to make sure they have the bare minimum to the child.

if you were interested in being a real father, it wouldn't matter to you if you had to give 90% of your paychecks away to your child.

i always felt this way

 

[BANLEU]

Originally Posted by AZwildcats

Originally Posted by blackmagnus514

Originally Posted by voodoo

Why is it that once a child turns 18 CS is no longer required, but a 30 y/o woman who divorces her husband needs alimony?

this

I've never gotten a good answer to this question. Someone please enlighten me

Personally, I think both child support and alimony are both flawed in many ways, but the reason that child support ends at 18 and alimony doesn't end at a certain age is reasonable. At 18 a person is supposed to make decisions that will establish their own lives apart from their parents. Additionally, before turning 18 a person hasn't had to contribute much if anything to their own upbringing.

A spouse on the other hand is expected to make contributions to everything that goes into a marriage. Therefore, upon divorce a spouse can't be expected to afford the same lifestyle without the support of their partner. In other words, a marriage is supposed to be a liftetime commitment in which both parties share equal responsibility. Whereas parenthood is supposed to be a limited commitment in which only one party is responsible for the other.

Also notice I said spouse and not wife because I've heard of instances in which a wife supported her husband. Also child support doesn't always end at 18 because I have heard of cases in which a parent is expected to support their child until they turn 21.

Anyway my biggest issue with CS is the same as other in here. It is simply too easy to take advantage of the system and the money can easily be mishandled. Thankfully, Maryland laws don't suck as much because here CS is dependant on how many days a year the child spends with each parent, how much the parent contributes to things like health care and day care, and the childs overall expenses. For example, my custody agreement pretty much requires equal time spent with my son and he is on my health insurance and I pay his daycare, so if my sons mom took me to court I would pay very little if anything. In fact, my lawyer suggested that we have a good case for being the ones getting paid, however, we like to keep things civil so we don't need to be stuck in court.

 

[memphissfinest]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by ScottHallWithAPick

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey


scott i agree with u on a lot of topics, but u lose absolutely nothing with agreeing for this system to be monitored closely-like I said I have NO kids, my mother busted her %$$$ %@% to raise three successful kids, I would rather adopt than have kids of my own I have nothing to gain by arguing for child support reform

I agree, everything should be monitored but the things said in here are absurd. So if a woman loses her job the father shouldn't have to pay support anymore? Yeah %@%* that kid this is the time where it least needs money.

if a woman loses her job, and has kids she should make an attempt to get a new job---- the motivation to do so isn't there is thee woman has a bloody paycheck coming in every month

and if the woman doesnt have a job she shouldn't be the primary caretaker--all i want is for the court to consider financial effort on the part of the mother i dont think thats too much to ask for-it would thwart the motivation for a lot of women to use children as a meal ticket

HAVING A WOMAN MATCH A MAN'S CONTRIBUTION DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR WOULD GREATLY ELIMINATE A LOT OF PROBLEMS.   

 

[sundoobie]

Originally Posted by memphissfinest

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by ScottHallWithAPick

I agree, everything should be monitored but the things said in here are absurd. So if a woman loses her job the father shouldn't have to pay support anymore? Yeah %@%* that kid this is the time where it least needs money.

if a woman loses her job, and has kids she should make an attempt to get a new job---- the motivation to do so isn't there is thee woman has a bloody paycheck coming in every month

and if the woman doesnt have a job she shouldn't be the primary caretaker--all i want is for the court to consider financial effort on the part of the mother i dont think thats too much to ask for-it would thwart the motivation for a lot of women to use children as a meal ticket

HAVING A WOMAN MATCH A MAN'S CONTRIBUTION DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR WOULD GREATLY ELIMINATE A LOT OF PROBLEMS.   

Having the FATHER match the MOTHER'S contribution HOUR for HOUR would ALSO greatly eliminate a lot of problems.  FINANCIAL this or that but what about the HOURS/DAYS/YEARS parenting these kids?  A father gets his kids every other weekend?  A mere 4 days a month while the single mother takes care of the kids the remaining 27 days in the month and folks are complaining about Child Support?  Come on now...

 

[ladyexpensive]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by memphissfinest

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

if a woman loses her job, and has kids she should make an attempt to get a new job---- the motivation to do so isn't there is thee woman has a bloody paycheck coming in every month

and if the woman doesnt have a job she shouldn't be the primary caretaker--all i want is for the court to consider financial effort on the part of the mother i dont think thats too much to ask for-it would thwart the motivation for a lot of women to use children as a meal ticket

HAVING A WOMAN MATCH A MAN'S CONTRIBUTION DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR WOULD GREATLY ELIMINATE A LOT OF PROBLEMS.   

Having the FATHER match the MOTHER'S contribution HOUR for HOUR would ALSO greatly eliminate a lot of problems.  FINANCIAL this or that but what about the HOURS/DAYS/YEARS parenting these kids?  A father gets his kids every other weekend?  A mere 4 days a month while the single mother takes care of the kids the remaining 27 days in the month and folks are complaining about Child Support?  Come on now...

Exactly. You can't buy time ... in this case the mother is working basically TWO jobs.

The man is probably working one & breaking off some of his $$$ to make sure his kids are good.



And a lot of Child Support doesn't stop at 18 .. if a child hasn't received child support for however many years & can show proof (after 1, they can receive back support without the mother involved.

 

[ricky409]

Originally Posted by Noskey

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by ScottHallWithAPick

I agree, everything should be monitored but the things said in here are absurd. So if a woman loses her job the father shouldn't have to pay support anymore? Yeah %@%* that kid this is the time where it least needs money.

if a woman loses her job, and has kids she should make an attempt to get a new job---- the motivation to do so isn't there is thee woman has a bloody paycheck coming in every month

and if the woman doesnt have a job she shouldn't be the primary caretaker--all i want is for the court to consider financial effort on the part of the mother i dont think thats too much to ask for-it would thwart the motivation for a lot of women to use children as a meal ticket

The whole first sentence there, my family disagrees. Maybe it's not motivation for every woman to get a job, but I know damn sure my mom was busting her %!# trying to get a job when she lost hers, regardless of getting child support. CS wasnt nearly enough to live off of, as it isnt in most cases. If it is enough for a woman and her child to live off of, they need to get a new damn place to live.

I somewhat agree with the 2nd sentence you wrote though. But it's always a case-by-case basis in my eyes. For example, my mom was out a job for like 6 months and still took care of me better than my dad ever would have.

The whole side of women using children as meal tickets shouldnt really hold as much weight as it does in your guys' arguments since that happens far less often than y'all imagine it does. It's like saying that because a few cops out there harass minorities for no reason, all cops do.

  

 @ you thinkin this stuff doesnt happen on a daily basis.

 @ you thinkin women dont raise children of child support when they have so many government aided programs for mothers.