discuss the (de)merits of child support being used as income etc

[james&olya 1,121]

The person paying the support usually takes the exemption for the child.

Really? You don't know what you are talking about. Unless specifically granted to the paying parent, it is the custodial parent that the IRS gives the exemption to!

[kytwell 179]

You know my ex?!!!

They're all the same.

Seriously though I honestly believe it can be directly attributed to the process of divorce with the meting out of assets/debts. Then we come to the financial assessment phase when determining child support payments. We(men) get shafted throughout the entire process. If courts were to stop awarding custody and make each parent an equal, it would be the most effective way to eliminate the animosity. And with this the kids would benefit the most. You could go to any bar in America, any workplace, any soccer game, ball field or at least one male family member who could speak of the inequalities they endured throughout the process. This is not some conspiracy theory we're making up, it's an all too real reality for millions of men. Women get the kids and the men pay for them. This is wrong and any woman who believes a woman is better at raising a child than a man is delusional(Not speaking case specific, I'm speaking based just on gender alone). And any man who doesn't think he's capable of it, is brainwashed by society into thinking that women really are better caregiver's.

In more cases than some would think it is the woman who use the children as a weapon against the father. They're(children) the ultimate weapon in their arsenal and far too many women do not hesitate for a second to wield this weapon to get their way or rip the father further than he already is, after going through the process.

This has to change and I am happy that in PA at least, new legislation has been enacted to make the awarding of custody more gender neutral. It's a start, but I still standby my original sentiments that custody should be 50-50 and no money should be exchanged for the care of the kids and all joint expenses(daycare, sports, schooling, healthcare, medicines, etc, etc.) should be split 50-50.

[james&olya 1,121]

They're all the same.

Seriously though I honestly believe it can be directly attributed to the process of divorce with the meting out of assets/debts. Then we come to the financial assessment phase when determining child support payments. We(men) get shafted throughout the entire process. If courts were to stop awarding custody and make each parent an equal, it would be the most effective way to eliminate the animosity. And with this the kids would benefit the most. You could go to any bar in America, any workplace, any soccer game, ball field or at least one male family member who could speak of the inequalities they endured throughout the process. This is not some conspiracy theory we're making up, it's an all too real reality for millions of men. Women get the kids and the men pay for them. This is wrong and any woman who believes a woman is better at raising a child than a man is delusional(Not speaking case specific, I'm speaking based just on gender alone). And any man who doesn't think he's capable of it, is brainwashed by society into thinking that women really are better caregiver's.

In more cases than some would think it is the woman who use the children as a weapon against the father. They're(children) the ultimate weapon in their arsenal and far too many women do not hesitate for a second to wield this weapon to get their way or rip the father further than he already is, after going through the process.

This has to change and I am happy that in PA at least, new legislation has been enacted to make the awarding of custody more gender neutral. It's a start, but I still standby my original sentiments that custody should be 50-50 and no money should be exchanged for the care of the kids and all joint expenses(daycare, sports, schooling, healthcare, medicines, etc, etc.) should be split 50-50.

I could not agree more with you!!!

[Dakine10 5,452]

This has to change and I am happy that in PA at least, new legislation has been enacted to make the awarding of custody more gender neutral. It's a start, but I still standby my original sentiments that custody should be 50-50 and no money should be exchanged for the care of the kids and all joint expenses(daycare, sports, schooling, healthcare, medicines, etc, etc.) should be split 50-50.

Many states have gone to joint custody and 50-50 split if possible. It's in the best interest of the child. But there will always be money exchanged if the incomes are not equal. I don't see that changing.

Imagine a case where one parent makes $60000 a year and the other makes $20000 a year. The court is still addressing the inequity for the child, not the parents. Otherwise the child might be eating canned ravioli and sleeping on the couch half the time.

[james&olya 1,121]

Many states have gone to joint custody and 50-50 split if possible. It's in the best interest of the child. But there will always be money exchanged if the incomes are not equal. I don't see that changing.

Imagine a case where one parent makes $60000 a year and the other makes $20000 a year. The court is still addressing the inequity for the child, not the parents. Otherwise the child might be eating canned ravioli and sleeping on the couch half the time.

Some people wonder why many American children seem to lack motivation in school. Could this stem in part from attitudes and policies that believe income needs redistribution after divorce so that children do not see the substantial lifestyle differences resulting from how hard one works in school and in their career? Maybe it would be better for all if children saw how one lifestyle results in canned ravioli and sleeping on the couch while another affords the family some of the nicer things. Now we often have the opposite. The deadbeat mothers get support from all their baby-daddies while some of those fathers are reduced to poverty in spite of good educations, good jobs, and hard work. What is this teaching our children? Before any of you get on my case I am not advocating for fathers to let their children live in poverty. But I think the current laws in many jurisdictions go way too far the other way!

[Dakine10 5,452]

Some people wonder why many American children seem to lack motivation in school. Could this stem in part from attitudes and policies that believe income needs redistribution after divorce so that children do not see the substantial lifestyle differences resulting from how hard one works in school and in their career? Maybe it would be better for all if children saw how one lifestyle results in canned ravioli and sleeping on the couch while another affords the family some of the nicer things. Now we often have the opposite. The deadbeat mothers get support from all their baby-daddies while some of those fathers are reduced to poverty in spite of good educations, good jobs, and hard work. What is this teaching our children? Before any of you get on my case I am not advocating for fathers to let their children live in poverty. But I think the current laws in many jurisdictions go way too far the other way!

The mother's don't get support. The children do.

I don't know about the lack motivation part, but there's an equally important lesson in responsibility to be learned there too.

I make a lot than my wife. If we got divorced, even if we get 50-50 custody, I would be paying her. I knew that before we ever had kids. There's an exact formula - I could have figured out exactly how much I could be paying before my kids were born. No sense complaining it after the fact. Better to make sure your spouse isn't a deadbeat before having kids.

[kytwell 179]

Some people wonder why many American children seem to lack motivation in school. Could this stem in part from attitudes and policies that believe income needs redistribution after divorce so that children do not see the substantial lifestyle differences resulting from how hard one works in school and in their career? Maybe it would be better for all if children saw how one lifestyle results in canned ravioli and sleeping on the couch while another affords the family some of the nicer things. Now we often have the opposite. The deadbeat mothers get support from all their baby-daddies while some of those fathers are reduced to poverty in spite of good educations, good jobs, and hard work. What is this teaching our children? Before any of you get on my case I am not advocating for fathers to let their children live in poverty. But I think the current laws in many jurisdictions go way too far the other way!

Right on

The mother's don't get support. The children do.

What assurances do you have? Her word Unless the courts would take the money to make a check to the mortgage company and a gift card to the supermarket, there's nothing in any statute that says how the woman should spend that money. And this is wrong.

I make a lot than my wife.

Don't feel bad about that, congratulations. You should be rewarded for being a good earner, not punished by some arbitrary court decision.

If we got divorced, even if we get 50-50 custody, I would be paying her.

And this is fair? Hell no. 50-50 should mean just that. She takes care of them on her days, you take care of them on yours. End of story! And there should be nothing about "even" getting 50-50, you should get it and only if you screw up or are a screw up, should it not be this way.

[Dakine10 5,452]

And this is fair? Hell no. 50-50 should mean just that. She takes care of them on her days, you take care of them on yours. End of story! And there should be nothing about "even" getting 50-50, you should get it and only if you screw up or are a screw up, should it not be this way.

Yeah it is fair. It's fair to the kids.

The courts don't give a rats #### about what's fair to the parents, and they shouldn't. Parent's are adults. They already got to make their decisions. The kids are the ones who don't have any say in this.

[slim 1,525]

Easy fix for all this is don't have kids.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Really? You don't know what you are talking about. Unless specifically granted to the paying parent, it is the custodial parent that the IRS gives the exemption to!

Reading comprehension skills are necessary on a message board. "Usually" meaning who takes tax exemptions is part of the parenting plan, and not left to the tax code.

Unless you know a lot more about his situation than has been disclosed here you don't really know that! It is people like you that judge situations like this based on often faulty stereotypes that results in a lot of the prejudice (pre-judging) that has the effect of depriving many fathers of their rights!

I agree that, as a general rule, you should never, ever, disparage the ex when your children are around. As a child their identity is derived from both of their parents and when you attack the other parent you attack them. But individual situations vary widely, often in ways you might never imagine! My ex has sociopathic personality disorder and can lie so convincingly she can fool almost anyone for a while. She had custody and bad-mouthed me constantly. I NEVER spoke ill of her within their hearing. They have both chosen to live with me since their mid-teens and have NOTHING good to say of their mother. I used to try and get them to ease up on her till a child psychologist told me I needed to let them vent. It became necessary for me to acknowledge their feelings and that those feelings were valid and justified in order to prevent them from feeling like that worthless piece of meat/bargaining chip as you put it! By their choice and hers they no longer have any contact. I have never said it to them but they say often that they know the only reason their mother wanted custody was for the money!!!

*shrugs*

What did I right that would stereotype fathers?

[missmissy 38]

Sigh - the ex husband and I had to go back to court to have this all explained to him.

Since I had primary custody of the children, I got to take the tax exemption. I had primary custody and the child support he was supposed to pay (but NEVER did) was to be used by me for the support of the children. Said support included, but was not limited to - mortgage payments, food, clothing, school and the "extras" that were needed - gas in the car, school project supplies, scout dues, field trips, braces, prom dresses, class rings...all the things you never think about until you need money and don't have any. The court had to further explain he had NO say so whatsoever in how that money was used and he could NOT pay it directly to the children (which is why he never paid). I never counted it because I never received a dime from him but every financial statement I've ever filled out asks for and counts child support as income. You can rail on and on about how it shouldn't - but it does. Had I received any money from him, I would have included it as part of my annual income - because it would have been.

[james&olya 1,121]

Reading comprehension skills are necessary on a message board. "Usually" meaning who takes tax exemptions is part of the parenting plan, and not left to the tax code.

That is certainly a new definition! Which dictionary? The IRS has changed who takes the exemption. Years ago it had to do with how much support was paid. Now it is automatically the custodial parent unless there has been an order entered by the judge otherwise. In this area the judge will only order that if both parents agree. If it is contested the tie goes to the XX (as usual).

[kytwell 179]

The mother's don't get support. The children do.

Case in point, read below

Sigh - the ex husband and I had to go back to court to have this all explained to him.

The court had to further explain he had NO say so whatsoever in how that money was used and he could NOT pay it directly to the children (which is why he never paid).

Disclaimer, I'm not against you. Just enlightening someone unfamiliar with the process.

Yeah it is fair. It's fair to the kids.

Read the above and tell me it's fair to the kids, if she's spending the money intended for them on herself.

Again missmissy not accusing you of anything, just using it as an example.

Edited November 1, 2011 by kytwell

[missmissy 38]

What needs to be clarified is this - if I am spending the child support money on rent, house payments, food, gas in the car, all of which benefit me too....does that mean I'm spending it on myself and not the kids? Is "for the kids" only childrens clothing, poptarts, cheerios and school supplies?

As our judge outlined - support for children includes anything and everything that is necessary for the day to day life of a chlid. A roof over their heads, transportation, electricity, water, food.....all of which benefit the custodial parent as well. I'm not talking about nail appointments and spa days for mom.

I don't feel accused but I feel very strongly about a non-custodial parent's need for control over the child support. In my case, it wasn't worth fighting about and it created havoc in my kids life. I chose to work harder and when they got old enough, they all had part-time jobs and were able to help finance their own extras, just as I had to do when I was growing up. The last thing I wanted to do was raise another generation that is just like their father, attaching money and love and wanting hand-outs.

OUCH...time to tuck that bitterness away, right?? ;-)

Case in point, read below

Disclaimer, I'm not against you. Just enlightening someone unfamiliar with the process.

Read the above and tell me it's fair to the kids, if she's spending the money intended for them on herself.

Again missmissy not accusing you of anything, just using it as an example.

[kytwell 179]

car, housing, medical, schooling, sports, extra curriculars, food, etc are for the kids...we(men) know you'll live there, drive the car and eat. What's distressing is that there's no assurances or accountability from or of the woman through the courts, that the money is or will be used in this manner...just her word. read through the thread you'll see where people stand on this matter.

again i apologize if you feel insulted, i am not accusing. it's that devious unscrupulous women as well as men who are pricks do exist.

sorry for all lower case, damn shift key not working on my nb