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

[Asher]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
WTFAsher. It's called taking responsibility.

If that was the case then both parents should have custody of the child.

It makes sense to me after a divorce for child support, and for the duration that the wife remains unmarried. But the moment she marries another man, she's found a provider for her children (she does have custody, right?). The ex shouldn't be paying all the time if he's not the legal parent of the child when the woman has since gotten another legal parent for the child.

It'll go away eventually, but not for a while. There's too many old-fashioned people around. I'm not surprised this idea is shocking to you. The woman is basically double-dipping in the man-pool for resources.

BTW, on the topic of "responsibility' -- how responsible is it to have a child in a relationship that's not built to last? That's a terrible word for you to be throwing around in this kind of context.

[Asher]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Yeah, you're right about dropping it, Sloww. After all, Asher has never publicly admitted being wrong about anything. But technically, he could become a parent, and I don't like seeing ill-informed BS like that going unchallenged.

If I do become a parent, it'll be in a stable relationship where this isn't an issue...

Divorce is bad, mmkay. The reason for dating is to figure out if you can live with the person for the rest of your life. Too many people are blinded by lust or stupidity and enter marriages before they are ready.

I would be less concerned about me being a parent and teaching my child about taking responsibility (eg, not taking someone else's money for support after I've remarried -- it's just not right), and more concerned about the people getting divorces in the first place.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Asher
double-dipping in the man-pool

[Asher]

What we need to do is examine the purpose of child support payments.

In my mind, the purpose of child support payments is to continue to provide for a child when one parent leaves a relationship. That is, the child will not be disadvantaged by the lack of income from two parents.

The condition of necessary childsupport effectively ends when a woman re-married and has a legal parent other than the biological father for the child. The purpose of this new man is to support the child.

As long as the mother is single, she deserves child support. But not when she's re-married. The keyword here isn't "responsibility", it's "integrity". Why take money from someone when their role in the family has been replaced? You've cut him out of your family, so why should he pay when your child has a new father to provide.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Asher

If that was the case then both parents should have custody of the child.

It makes sense to me after a divorce for child support, and for the duration that the wife remains unmarried. But the moment she marries another man, she's found a provider for her children (she does have custody, right?). The ex shouldn't be paying all the time if he's not the legal parent of the child when the woman has since gotten another legal parent for the child.

It'll go away eventually, but not for a while. There's too many old-fashioned people around. I'm not surprised this idea is shocking to you. The woman is basically double-dipping in the man-pool for resources.

I agree with Asher. Thinking it over, child support is supposed to be for the children to be properly supported throughout their lives. The thinking being that a one parent household won't make enough money to support the children. If the party re-marries, then there are two parents and two potential incomes and therefore the argument for the ex paying child support goes away, IMO.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Ok wait before i am crucified i want to say i didnt get a dam dime before i met tuber hence the arrears. And when does it become the responsibility of the step parent to support children of a different marriage? The father still has visitation rights and from what i am to under stand he thinks his word goes as far as what is right and wrong for the kids. If he disagrees with me and tubes then we fight but he still fights. so i want to knwo is it tubers job to support his kids cause he married me and let the ass off the hook or what?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui




I agree with Asher. Thinking it over, child support is supposed to be for the children to be properly supported throughout their lives. The thinking being that a one parent household won't make enough money to support the children. If the party re-marries, then there are two parents and two potential incomes and therefore the argument for the ex paying child support goes away, IMO.

1. They have joint custody of the children.

2. Why should I have to pay for his children?

3. If I'm going to support them, they should become my children and he gets no visitation rights, except for what I, as the new father, allow him.

It always seems to be males without children and deadbeats that think men shouldn't have to pay child support.

ACK!

[-Jrabbit]

Those are still his children. Until they are legally adopted, he is responsible for them. Along with Mrs. Tubes, of course.

This guy has multiple kids from multiple marriages that ended in divorce. He's behind $12,000 in support payments. He's got three more kids by the next ex-wife. By your logic, this pattern of behavior has no consequences as long as the other parent remarries.

This guy is a deadbeat.

If he wants legal redress from his situation, he's free to pursue it. But until he does, and the court agrees -- he's gotta pay.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thinking it over, child support is supposed to be for the children to be properly supported throughout their lives.

That's alimony you are thinking of. CS is different. Alimony by the way does not get cut off if the ex-wife remarries, so I am wondering if you would speak up for those hard done by men whose wives leave them to take up with another man and live off what the first husband is paying her in alimony.

The thinking being that a one parent household won't make enough money to support the children. If the party re-marries, then there are two parents and two potential incomes and therefore the argument for the ex paying child support goes away, IMO.

Being a dad is different from being married. After a divorce you don't stop being the dad even if you are no longer the husband. You have rights to visitation and are expected to look after the children part of the time. Heck, it shouldn't even have to be regulated, I would think that any man grown up enough to have kids would make sure his kids are well looked after by him, not by anyone else.

Like Tuber said, if he's supporting them and caring for them he should get to be their dad, with all the rights and responsibilities. Why should someone who doesn't want to support them get to be called their dad?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Like Tuber said, if he's supporting them and caring for them he should get to be their dad, with all the rights and responsibilities. Why should someone who doesn't want to support them get to be called their dad?

That's not exactly what I'm saying, I support them, but I would never try to replace their dad.

What would happen in Imran's world, is there would be a lot less remarriage, because most men, like him (as far as I know), wouldn't want to instantly become a father because the women they love have children.

So, child support would still happen. We would also have a lot more co-habitation, as long as they aren't married, the father would still have to pay.

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's alimony you are thinking of. CS is different. Alimony by the way does not get cut off if the ex-wife remarries, so I am wondering if you would speak up for those hard done by men whose wives leave them to take up with another man and live off what the first husband is paying her in alimony.

No, alimony is spousal support. Has nothing to do with support of the children. And yes, on remarriage, alimony should be cut off.

Are we assuming that on remarriage the new husband won't pay for anything for the kids?

Being a dad is different from being married. After a divorce you don't stop being the dad even if you are no longer the husband. You have rights to visitation and are expected to look after the children part of the time. Heck, it shouldn't even have to be regulated, I would think that any man grown up enough to have kids would make sure his kids are well looked after by him, not by anyone else.

Like Tuber said, if he's supporting them and caring for them he should get to be their dad, with all the rights and responsibilities. Why should someone who doesn't want to support them get to be called their dad?

I got no problems with that. Though, Tubs said there was joint custody. I assume that means that half of the time they are with their father? Doesn't he support them during that time? Doesn't he pay for them when they are with him?

On the other hand, if the parent gets minimal visitation rights and the mother marries another husband, why shouldn't the payments be reduced? Especially if the new husband is more well off financially. I'm thinking of your example above where the spouse leave to take up with someone else who may be wealthier and collect support payments. Are we assuming the new husband won't pay for the children's expenses? I think that's a wrong assumption to make and the child support payments should be reduced accordingly.

Either that or make a shared 50/50 custody more available instead of these "visitation fathers". Or perhaps more fairness in these custory hearings and not a bias towards mothers as seems to exist (why are single fathers so rare compared to single mothers anyway?).

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


No, alimony is spousal support. Has nothing to do with support of the children. And yes, on remarriage, alimony should be cut off.

Are we assuming that on remarriage the new husband won't pay for anything for the kids?



I got no problems with that. Though, Tubs said there was joint custody. I assume that means that half of the time they are with their father? Doesn't he support them during that time? Doesn't he pay for them when they are with him?

On the other hand, if the parent gets minimal visitation rights and the mother marries another husband, why shouldn't the payments be reduced? Especially if the new husband is more well off financially. I'm thinking of your example above where the spouse leave to take up with someone else who may be wealthier and collect support payments. Are we assuming the new husband won't pay for the children's expenses? I think that's a wrong assumption to make and the child support payments should be reduced accordingly.

Either that or make a shared 50/50 custody more available instead of these "visitation fathers". Or perhaps more fairness in these custory hearings and not a bias towards mothers as seems to exist (why are single fathers so rare compared to single mothers anyway?).

They have joint custody, but the Mrs. is still custodial parent.

For the record, she didn't have a lawyer while her ex did. Somehow he still lost.

ACK!

[Addled Platypus]

Asher needs to adopt some kids for the long haul



BTW

men are pigs

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Asher
I don't understand why the guy has to pay money if you took the kids. Especially since you've since entered into another relationship with another man who can provide...

Damn if that ain't the truth Asher. (Hmm - apparently I now find myself agreeing with Asher)

But like so much else in family law, the women get all the breaks

I would like (the danish) family laws rewritten to give a lot more weight to the actualy case at hand, and a lot less weight to gender considerations. After all - not only women love their children, but the lawmakers seem to think that that is the case

Asmodean

[Jon Miller]

child support is there because the man is still the father, as such he needs to support his kids

let's say there are two marriages, they both break, and then one man and one wife remarry

now the remarried people are paying for all the children under some of yours system

this is blatantly unfair

besides the fact that it is taking a way responsibility of fathers, if you are the father you shuold support yours kids

JM