T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
56.1 | It is every parent's PRIVILEGE and OBLIGATION | SCAACT::COX | Kristen Cox - Dallas ACT Sys Mgr | Mon May 07 1990 13:09 | 28 |
| I feel that any parent who does not feel an obligation to support their
child (emotional, financial, etc...) is a real heel. I just can't understand
that type of thinking, and it pains me to know the effects on the child.
HOWEVER, I can understand circumstances where the court may award an ungodly
amount of support for the child, or where unavoidable circumstances make it
difficult or impossible to pay any or all child support, etc. And it is not
cheap or free to go back to court to get support modified (even temporarily),
so many parents may simply quit paying for some time. There should be some
mechanism in place to modify child support when appropriate, at a reasonable
or even no cost. Just my opinions, of course. Withholding support because
of any other reason (i.e. visitation) is wrong, and hurts the child, and adds
fuel to the fire.
I have a friend whose ex did not pay her regularly for a few years. If he had
extra money he would give her some, but not near what he was supposed to pay
($300/mo). He knew she would provide for her daughter regardless. Also, he
had frequent visitation with his daughter, and the little girl NEVER KNEW there
was any tension between them (admirable IMO). My friend is a secretary and
has a house and car payment, and her daughter to support. No lawyer would
handle her case for free. She learned of a free service through the courts
whereby they will fight it for you, and pursued that. She got a letter telling
her that while litigation was in progress, do not accept ANY money from the ex,
or they will have no case. By the way, the backlog of cases was more than a
year. My friend could not go a year without accepting money from him - some
was better than none. So she takes what she can get from him. Sad but true.
Kristen
|
56.2 | 2 cents worth... | AIMHI::RENDA | | Mon May 07 1990 14:01 | 21 |
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Well Kristen, you know my circumstances surrounding no support from
my stepson's other parent. And I think that she is doing it because
she feels that when I married Jason's father that she could dump
all her responsibilities on me, this is what she told Jason....
I believe that all parents are responsible for their children, and
that the responsibility should be based on a reasonable financial
and emotional level. But, then if we had that we wouldn't need
this confernence would we???!!!!
I think these walk away parents must have something wrong in their
heads.... I guess at some level I think that I feel bad for the
miserable lives they must lead *sigh*.....
Just my 2 cents worth,
Kim
|
56.3 | It's took 2 to tango | DYO780::EERENBERG | Thanks for the NEW start. | Wed May 09 1990 12:10 | 22 |
| A very close friend of mine gets child support reluctantly from
her ex. He was court ordered to work (used to be a manager at Kmart
but quit) because he found another women who would take care of
him financially and refused to pay. He's now an orderly at a hospital.
I believe we all have to be responsible. This guy absolutely cork
screws me into the ceiling! The only reason she gets paid is because
the his wages are garnished. He stole several thousand which the
court has ordered to repay, but does only a few $$$/month to her.
if that!
Anyhow! Maybe there are circumstances which child support shouldn't
be paid as high as the court orders, but I can't think of any
circumstance (ie. normal, everyday type things) in which an NC person
should not pay. They should have thought about that before going
to bed...
My point: If an NC doesn't pay, it usually reflects in their
relationship with their child(ren); a very bad one.
John
|
56.4 | please explain | GIAMEM::MACKINNON | ProChoice is a form of democracy | Wed May 09 1990 12:35 | 50 |
|
Note: In this note I will sometimes refer to the NCP as Daddy.
This as we all know is not always the case! Do not be offended!
re -1
"My point. If the NCP does not pay child support it usually affects
their relationship with their kids."
Please elaborate! I see absolutely No connection between the
non payment of support and the state of the parent/child relationship.
However, from my experience, the relationship that suffers through
non payment of support is between the two parents. Yet there
is the possibility that the one unhappy custodial parent can
influence the child due to this. Example " Oh Daddy doesnt love
you cause he does not pay support! He doesn't care!"
Sure there are some scum out there who do not pay support and they
should be punished. But their children should not have to suffer
by being denied that parent as is often the case. Example
CP: Where's my money?
NCP: I do not have it for you.
CP: Then you don't get to see your kid.
This only hurts the child and the parent not allowed to see the child.
My boyfriend is currently unemployed. He is actively searching for a
job, but has had the support payments reduced due to his situation.
However, his ex is constantly demanding the same amount of money or
"You will not see your daughter" It is bull!
Due to economic situations he simply can not afford to pay the amount
he had been paying when he was employed. He gets unemployment and
only $25 dollars of that is allowed to him by the state for his child.
Now $25 is alot less than what he was originally ordered to pay, but
at least it is something. Yet his ex feels she has the right to
deny him his child and their child her father because she is not getting
the full amount. Is there any reasoning in that? NO! Just revenge!!
Mi
|
56.5 | | SIVA::MACDONALD | | Tue May 22 1990 07:59 | 15 |
|
I feel no mercy for the few slime balls who can pay and simply won't
be responsible enough to do it. I say put their butts in jail until
their attitude "adjusts." If it doesn't adjust, then they stay there
period.
For some it's a case of the court ordering something that simply can't
be done. I hear horror stories about courts ordering payments that
left a NCP with $50 a week or so to live on. That is ridiculous. If
I were in that situation, I would just tell that judge that we needed
either to talk a bit more or put me in jail now cause it isn't going to
wash.
Steve
|
56.6 | when support is a fair ammount | SPARKL::SANTOS | | Wed Oct 09 1991 14:17 | 19 |
| re.4
My X has stopped paying court order payments which was lower than it
normally would have been because I agreed that something was better
than nothing. But now he is not paying support or even taking any
interest in our son so I feel that why should he get to see Andrew when
he does not call or pay support to raise him. My X's mother is the
only one who sees my son and know I will not let him go over there.
Why should I give my time with my son to some one (his father) who
never goes to see Andrew (at his mothers it was court order that be
where the visitation s be). When I am the one who raises him kisses
his boo boo's better and is there when somthing is going on in his
life. I have to be the one to support and raise him by myself so why
let his father see him. I dont believe in letting NCP that dont pay
FAIR support pyments having their cake and eating it to. NOT FAIR TO
CP
Della
|
56.7 | re .6 | PENUTS::GWILSON | | Wed Oct 09 1991 15:46 | 12 |
| re .6
I am in no way condoning the non payment of support, but you
have no right to deny your son his right to know his father and
grandmother. If you've got a problem with the ex, then it is up
to you to take the necessary legal steps to correct that problem.
What you are doing is illegal in the state I live in. Support and
visitation are two separate issues. I would be curious to know
what you are telling your son in regards to why he can't see his
father or grandmother.
Gary
|
56.8 | | AIMHI::RAUH | Home of The Cruel Spa | Wed Oct 09 1991 16:02 | 22 |
| Its attitudes like this, Della, that feed the fires that will consume
you. By doing what your doing, you are and will feed you son some bad
emotions that might cause him harm. Denial of seeing his dad can and
will do that. If you two birds are fighting, still, vs being civil,
its no wounder he isn't around. Your giving your ex good reasons not
to work either. As in a butthead attitude line, "If I don't work, she
doesn't get all my pay". VS, "Yea, the marriage didn't work, she is a
good mother, and the child is better off". This the attitude. You
are a Dec employee, and I can say that you problably have taken Face to
Face and other people related courses. And you also know that if
you and your ex are not talking, than things are going do be a down
hill game for all three of you.
I have custody of my daughter, I am not keen on who she is running
with, but the child doesn't belong to either of us exclusively, the
child is on loan to us from "God", and will belong to someone else in
a couple of years. And IT is my duty to foster a good healthy
relationship with her mom and family. Other wise, I am the cause of
our problems, and it will be me to blame if my daughter has emotional
problems.
Think of it.
|
56.9 | Sorry-Cab't agree If an NCP don't pay he has broken the agrrement first. | GLOSSA::BRUCKERT | | Wed Oct 09 1991 16:38 | 12 |
|
Sorry, can't agree. If an NCP doesn't pay then the children
suffer in lots of ways. They will know what's happening and will
probably hear bull like "I love you kids but i won't give a damn
dime to that $!jsj". Denial is a way to force the person who is not
paying to take the issue(s) to court. Most CP's with no support
haven't got ANY extra money for lawyers. If the NCP does't like
the terms then he/she should have them changed, not deny the children.
An NCP who does not pay has broken the agreement and is a
deadbeat--even if things are unfair-fight it but pay as you fight.
I have joint physical custody but I pay large bucks. So I'm a
financial NCP.....
|
56.10 | | SRATGA::SCARBERRY_CI | | Wed Oct 09 1991 17:03 | 7 |
| This is always a tough situation. But, then I'd warn NCPs that are
court ordered denied visitation, not to use the "if I can't see
them, then I won't pay". Because, it'll backfire. "if you don't
pay, you can't visit". Is any of this fair?
I hate the idea that a parent has to make the other meet his/her
responsibilties. What a shame.
|
56.11 | Let your child see his father! | RIPPLE::KENNEDY_KA | I am not my fault | Wed Oct 09 1991 18:25 | 12 |
| re .7 & 8
Ditto. Della, I didn't see or hear from my ex-husband for 12 years
after my divorce. I never received a dime of child support. He came
back into mine and my son's life when my son was 12. My son decided he
wanted to live with his father. I had no right to say no. A child has
the right to know both of his parents, regardless of what the parents
feelings are. I don't care one bit for my ex-husband. But that is
irrelevant. My son simply has the right to know his father. I don't
have the right to interfere with that relationship.
Karen
|
56.12 | | SRATGA::SCARBERRY_CI | | Wed Oct 09 1991 18:41 | 3 |
| re.11
You're quite a strong and a smart mother. I think you're doing
the best in the long run.
|
56.13 | anger and punishment | PARZVL::GRAY | Follow the hawk, when it circles, ... | Thu Oct 10 1991 09:47 | 22 |
|
.6> I have to be the one to support and raise him by myself so why
.6> let his father [...] I dont believe in letting NCP that dont pay
.6> FAIR support pyments having [...]
It sounds to me like a case of "convenient weapon (of choice)".
When the NCP gets mad at the CP, he thinks about with holding
child support. When the CP gets mad at the NCP she thinks about
with holding contact with the child(ren).
IMO they are totally separate issues and their use causes damage
unrelated to the problem at hand.
And as an added 2�, I insure that my son writes to and visits
my ex's side of the family. They are HIS aunts, uncles and
cousins. They have a right to see each other regardless of how I
feel about my ex! My son and his cousins will be together long
after his mother and I are dead and gone!
Richard
|
56.14 | | AIMHI::RAUH | Home of The Cruel Spa | Thu Oct 10 1991 09:59 | 6 |
| Richard,
Your $.02 is worth $2.00!! Esp that last parra! We forget who these
kids really belong to. And its not either of the mom and/dad they are
on loan to us.
|
56.15 | maybe CP should be NCP | MR4DEC::CIOFFI | | Fri Oct 11 1991 09:18 | 30 |
| I agree with the rest, support and visitation are separate issues. I
do however believe that unsupervised visitations with an NCP who has
drug and alcohol problems should not be allowed. I am in custody of my
8 year old daughter and I don't get a dime from my ex. She calls every
3 or 4 months and makes an appointment to visit with my daughter and
then usually doesn't show up. Of course, my daughter is devastated and
there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. If my ex was living a
clean life I would not stop my daughter from seeing her anytime. I
don't believe in visitation rules. Just because you get divorced from
your spouse you shouldn't be divorced from your kids and you should not
have to get permission from the NCP to have visitation. This is just
another thing that groups like DAD are trying to stop. We CPs and NCPs
don't want big law changes we only want the laws to be enforced fairly.
Women should not be getting custody 97% of the time. There are a lot
of fathers out there who are financially and emotionally capable and
willing to take care of their children, like me. I feel as though if
the CP can't make due with support payments that are fair to the NCP
and the NCP is capable of taking care of the children then the NCP
should be the CP. Then the new NCP can live a normal life.
Unfortunately, all this hoopla about being the CP or NCP usually
relates to the "VISITATION RULES" which just shouldn't even exist. Of
course you have to fight over this with the old goat judges who control
the "JUSTICE" system. I don't know where the justice is but if I spend
the rest of my life looking maybe I can find 1 case where there was
justice. Judges in probate court do not make fair judgments. They
make judgments which will best suit the continued support of the
"SYSTEM". Afterall, if they didn't make so many rules how could we
support so many well-to-do lawyers(judges).
|