Is this common now or has it been going on for years?

[Mrs. Tuberski]

And to shed some more light, who do u think pays the mortage for our home the electricity the cable the hi speed internet for the kids? It isnt coming out of the child suport it comes out of my check and tubers. Child suport is designed to support the children not the parents and if one has to pay one has to pay. And for the record there are plenty of men recieving child support cause they have custody. its not that women get all the breaks.
Like tuber said i dint have a lawyer when we got divorced, i told the lawyer what would be acceptable for support at the time of our divorce which was nothing compared to what he should have been paying. i told this lawyer 400 a month for three kids off a guy making 40 grand a year. i never went and inforced when he didnt pay and he got into arrears his fault not mine.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So in other words, they should have the privilege without the responsibility of having to raise the child. I'm sorry Asher, it shouldn't work that way. With privileges come responsibility, you can't have one without the other.

Hey, the vast majority of them would love to raise the child. They usually can't, which is punishment enough, isn't it?

Is the money for the mother or for the child? Again, you are conflating child support with alimony. The child support is to support the child and not the mother.

I am not confusing the two, they are in reality, one and the same...

If he has the right of visitation then he is still the father.

You clearly use the term very loosely. I'm not sure you know what a father is if you count someone who sees a child every other week for a day a "father".

How fair is it for the new husband to look after children that are not his own, not be called the father, not have any of the privileges of the father, and yet have the responsibility of raising them and making sure they are well looked after?

Last time I checked, legally he does have the privileges of being the father. He becomes a legal guardian. The only difference is biologically, they are not related.

This isn't about being "fair", it's about being right. When a new man enters the family as the mother's husband, he is the father to the children in that family.

I already have. Read up Asher. I know you ignored my first post and I find that very curious.

Which post is that?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ah, now I get it why this bugs you so much. Look asher, as much as you would prefer biological parents to have no rights to their kids, they do and they ought to be treated with more consideration. This goes for mothers as well as fathers.

As much as I hate to agree with Asher, this is getting a little personal. Asher's posts have mentioned nothing of stripping biological parents of their rights, but that if child support is about the children's welfare, and the woman gets a new partner, she is no longer in need of her ex's child support since there is a new family. Whether or not you agree with his assertions (which I don't, quite at least), there's no need to bring in slightly nasty undertones to your strawmen. Argue against the points he puts in front of you, don't make it personal.

This is a general warning to chill, this is obviously a very personal, emotive issue, so please try and treat others' opinions with respect and not hostility.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Asher didn't mention how it was unfair, so why quote him?

ACK!

Because I thought - like Asher apparently did - that he didn't have joint custody Apparently he has, which makes the case different (at least in my mind).

Asmodean

[Ben Kenobi]

You cling too much to biological basis rather than practical reality.

Drogue, this is the point I was commenting on.

Not sure if you saw it. I wasn't referring to asher himself, but the belief that he didn't see parental authority as coming from a biological basis. That's why I said I see now why this is such a problem for Asher, I wasn't aware of how he felt until this post.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey, the vast majority of them would love to raise the child. They usually can't, which is punishment enough, isn't it?

They will be involved in the child raising if they want to be involved in the child raising. It's up to the dad. Somehow I suspect dads who don't want to pay are reluctant to take advantage of the time that they get with their children to be involved in their lives and in the decisions that are being made. It really is up to the dad how much he wants to be involved.

I am not confusing the two, they are in reality, one and the same...

Why then does child support end when the children are grown up but alimony does not? Asher, they are very different from one another.

You clearly use the term very loosely. I'm not sure you know what a father is if you count someone who sees a child every other week for a day a "father".

As I stated, if you father a child, you are the father of the child, whether you want to be or not. I agree with you that a father who never sees his kids is a poor father, but he is still a father, and still has that responsibility to the children that no one else will have. The child may be looked after by his mom or someone else, but that does not excuse the father of his duty and obligation to the child he helped to make.

Last time I checked, legally he does have the privileges of being the father. He becomes a legal guardian. The only difference is biologically, they are not related.

This isn't about being "fair", it's about being right. When a new man enters the family as the mother's husband, he is the father to the children in that family.

No he isn't. He's the husband of the mom, but not the father to the kids. If the father were to say I don't want to have anything to do with my kids, then yes he could become their father, but until then he is a step-dad.

He has no right to go in and say I am looking after these kids financially, therefore I am their legal guardian, he can't strip the father of his rights, unless the father gives them up or is a danger to his kids.

Which post is that?

Up in the thread, it's there. I replied to you earlier but you must not have seen it in the flurry this morning.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Drogue, this is the point I was commenting on.

Not sure if you saw it. I wasn't referring to asher himself, but the belief that he didn't see parental authority as coming from a biological basis. That's why I said I see now why this is such a problem for Asher, I wasn't aware of how he felt until this post.

The constantly recurring problem with you is you cannot interpret posts as they were made. You take a comment that is critical of you saying the man who conceived the child will always be his "dad", while I'm saying that is not the case in many situations -- the stepfather who then raises the child afterwards is legally, and practically, the dad.

You, as you always do, immediately took this, ran with it, and slammed it into unrelated ways like I would like to strip all rights away from biological parents.

Once you know how a debate works, you'll be welcome to step up to the big leagues and debate with me. Until then, stay in the minors, and work on your analytical skills. Perhaps enroll in a science at your local university.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
They will be involved in the child raising if they want to be involved in the child raising. It's up to the dad. Somehow I suspect dads who don't want to pay are reluctant to take advantage of the time that they get with their children to be involved in their lives and in the decisions that are being made. It really is up to the dad how much he wants to be involved.

Actually, it's not up to the dad...it's up to the courts. And courts overwhelmingly favour the mom. 99% of the time. The moms don't even need to hire a lawyer, as Mrs T demonstrates. They win by default.

Why then does child support end when the children are grown up but alimony does not? Asher, they are very different from one another.

You're still not seeing this as I intended. You need to think deeper.

I'm saying both are functionally the same, not both are legally the same. Please discern the difference.

Every month they receive cheques they can spend as they please. There is no real difference.

As I stated, if you father a child, you are the father of the child, whether you want to be or not. I agree with you that a father who never sees his kids is a poor father, but he is still a father, and still has that responsibility to the children that no one else will have.

I don't consider deadbeat dads fathers. They are biological parents, but a father is a man who raises a child. This is the difference -- substance versus a label.

No he isn't. He's the husband of the mom, but not the father to the kids.

This is, perhaps, the fundamental problem with modern heterosexual society. You don't believe in family values.

[SlowwHand]

Being a father is not the same as becoming a father. Most men can become fathers. That's doesn't make them a father. That takes work. Some men, it's outside their ability.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Being a father is not the same as becoming a father. Most men can become fathers. That's doesn't make them a father. That takes work. Some men, it's outside their ability.

I think you are agreeing with my definition of father, but I can't tell.

[SlowwHand]

The father is who takes the child to ball games. Camping. Instills respect for others. Respects the child's feelings. Guides with a firm but understanding hand.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

But wait here i have said my ex remarried and therefore has a second income as well, why does this change the scheme of things? Bottom line is the supporting and rasing of a child is monetary support by both parents (biological) The marrying party does thier share by sharing in the bills and house payments and food etc. I think by letting fathers or mothers off the hook finacially if the other parent has moved on sets a precedent for more deadbeat parents.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's Sloww, no one can tell .

And yes, Arrian, I'm on Asher's side on this. If you really insist on the father paying child support after the ex wife remarries, then I think it should go into a trust fund for the children as long as they are being provided for in a complete family unit.

Many folks like to throw out the "deadbeat dad" assertion, but no one really responded to Patroklos' example of the woman who marries/divorces over and over again and collects 3 or 4 "child support" payments.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Asher

"Buyer beware".

Deadbeat dads surely should've had glaring character flaws one should notice before reciting the vows or having unprotected sex with them...

I don't think it's rewarding deadbeat dads, but it would surely make more women think before marrying someone who is capable of being a deadbeat dad.

asher, you would be screaming bloody murder if this rationale was applied towards funding research for an AIDS cure or inhibitors.

or condom subsidization.

or anything that you actually care about.

"if you didnt want AIDS you should have thought about having unprotected sex with that asymptomatic HIV positive man. No recourse for you!"

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The father is who takes the child to ball games. Camping. Instills respect for others. Respects the child's feelings. Guides with a firm but understanding hand.

Yep.