I have been saying on this forum over and over again that men should take care of their children not with their wallets , but with their time. Fathers should fight to split their childs time 50-50 with the mother when the relationship with the mother is over.

I feel that if a father does not demand and fight to see his child 50% of the time he should pay the mother wages for caring for the child when he should be (in addition to child support).

-A child has 744 hours per month to spend with the mother and the father.

- Divide 744 hours in half each parent should be with the child 372 hours.

- Typical fathers (every other weekend) see and care for their children 96 hours of those 744 hours.

- Typical mothers see and care for their children 648 of those 744 hours.

- The mother is taking care of the child her 372 hours plus an additional 276 hours that the father should be spending with the child.

- Again let me say: Father 96 hours vs. mother 648 hours per month.

- If fathers were orderd by the court to care for their children 50% of the time and decided not to this would mean that they would have to pay a daycare for caring for their child 24 hours a day x 11.5 days. Average daycares charge $3.13 an hour. Thus, the father would have to pay a daycare: 24 hours a day x 11.5 days= 276 hours x $3.13 an hour = $863.88 per month.

- That means that the father owes the mother $10,366.56 per year in wages for caring for the child during the hours that he should be with the child ($863.88 per month x 12 months).

-In one year the mother cares for the child 3312 hours of time that the father should be caring for the child (276 hours x 12).

- Typical (every other weekend) fathers care for thier child 1152 hours per year (96 hours per mo. x 12 mo.) vs. mothers who care for the child 7776 hours per year (648 hours per mo. x 12 mo.)

- IF fathers will not take responsibility for their children and care for them when they should, then they should be forced to pay not only for the care of the child with support payments (for clothes/food/school/etc..), but also to make compensations for the mothers time that she cares for the child during hours that the father should be with the child.

- If fathers had to not only pay support, but also compensations to the mother for her hours; more men would spend more time with their kids. Especially if spliting the childs time meant that they did not have to pay support or pay wage compensation to the mother.

My point in all this is; FATHERS if you are so willing to fight for something then get out their and fight for equal time with your children. They need you and want to have a father that loves them enough to fight for equal time with them. Make them pass legistrations that protects your right to have your child with you 50% of the time. Make them pass laws that does not allow a judge to force supervised visitations on accusations of the mother alone. Make them have to envolve child protection services to follow up on complaints/accusations made by the mother so that an investigation of the mother, as well as, the father would take place. If the child protection agency found no marit for the mothers accusations she could be fined for wasting the services and courts time. This would go vis versa for fathers accusations upon mothers. Yes, it will take time and is a huge process, but aren't your kids worth it?

A post like this just pushes fathers further away from their families

Paying the mother? I do not think so.

She had just as much to do with having the child as the father, and in many situations

more than the father. Sorry this is just nuts!

I disagree with the part about paying the mothers, but I firmly believe good, responsible fathers should have court ordered %50 of the time with thier kids regardless of where they live.

Exactly "she had just as much to do with AS THE FATHER" thats why he should care for the child just as she does.

Think of the payment for time this way; If a mother sent her child to daycare for 11.5 days out of the month 24 hours per day what would happen? Do you think that fathers would pay for that? They would clam the mother unfit and refuse to pay. So, why then are not fathers who are basically doing the same thing claimed as unfit????

It does not push the father away it pushes him into being responsible and forces him to become accountable and stop neglecting his children.

I tried to see your post from your point of view. The only way I was able to even get some kind of agreement is to replace "typical father" with "typical court ordered non-custodial parent." It is sick to think a typical father only wants what you decribe. Obviously, you don't know me.

Why go to court about it? Why have to spend all the time and money to have to FIGHT in court about time with the kids? Why can't you just be a good parent, encourage a healthy relationship, and share the kids equally without the courts being envolved? Oh wait -- perhaps, your the TYPICAL MOTHER that goes to court to FIGHT for the children and then blames the court for the the order created even though the action started by YOU; whom can't seem to accept responsibility for one's own actions.

Pardon me, but I do know mothers who do try to make sure their kids have equal time with both parents without any court involvement. Those mothers are obviously ABOVE AND BEYOND A TYPICAL MOTHER. Those are the mothers that, even though I been through hard times with myself, I still highly respect. The fathers that don't accept the time with their children when one of these kind of mothers gives them time just freak'n don't know what they got.

But the men know what they got when they got you... only a typical support order.

If you can't take the responsibility on yourself to make sure the kids have equal time then you just are just an irresponsibile parent.



Hmmppfff, I vented... yes indeed.

No I am not the typical mother who want to be the CP. You just did what you classified me as. Someone who just assumes. I did not do that to you personally. If you read my other posts to you, you will see that. You said why bother with the courts my answer to you is because in your situation you have to. You kids are why bother. Pardon me, but I think that your kids should be worth going thru the legal process to see them if you have to. You are one of those guys who just wants to sit around and claim that you love your kids and that you want to see them and grip about paying support. A solution to your problem is right under your nose, but you are to busy blaming everyone else to see it. GO TO COURT and FIGHT to see YOUR KIDS 50% of their time. This would solve your inability to pay support problems, it would allow you to be with your kids and share their lives, and make your life, as well as, theirs richer and better off. Thats WHY BOTHER. Do you want your life to get better? Do you REALLY want to see your kids? Do you want to stop paying support? If so, GO TO COURT and fight to see your children. Yes, you are right it should not be this way, but in your situation it is. Carring on about it is not fixing your situation, but going to court and getting into action would.

FYI, I did not receive nor ask for support when I got a divorce. So I must be one of those above and beyond women you so highly spoke of.

In the first place the mother gets a tax break on daycare, so she is getting some recomp. Also the father sometimes has to pay for daycare, if he is required to work while he has the children. But depending on how the child custody was setup he may or may not be allowed to claim childcare on his taxes. You would basically be forcing fathers to double pay. Not to mention the father would be paying the mother to raise her own children. This whole argument is insane.

Im a mother with full custody of my children, and they have a dead-beat dad who hasnt paid but 500 in 6 years and hardly ever bothers to see the kids or call them, I paid for childcare for them while I was working, not once ever would I want my ex to pay me for the privledge of raising my children. It may be a privledge he lost due to being a bad father but its ridiculous to expect him to pay me for something that I as a mother should be more then happy to do.

No insane is the fact that fathers do not spend time with their kids and just expect a woman to give up her entire life to care for the child alone. She did not conceive the child alone nor should she raise the child alone. Its his kid too and he should take responsibility for it. Women (being loving and nurturing as we are) need to make men care for their children. This is the problem most women do not stand up for themselves and for their kids. Instead they just let fathers deposit and walk away. Raising children is not about money its about time. Its about caring for the child. I may feel like that I am more capable of caring for my child than my ex is, but who knows maybe if he was given the chance to care for his child he (and the rest of the every other weekend dads) would be able to bond with their kids and give them as good of care as a mother does.
This goes hand in hand with the fact that women feel obligated to do all of the house work and take care of the kids even though she works full time too. Men get to come home sit on the couch, get up about once a month or so to fix something. Women let men get by with making them feel obligated and gulty if they do not do all the work. I read a stitistic not long ago that said that even today with so many women in the work force that 80% of those women who are working full time still do most of the house work, cooking, cleaning, and raising the kids.
If women start to value their time as a man does not for pleasing others and doing for others all of the time and allow themselves some time for themselves than this support thing would not be an issue. Women need to value their time. I know how you feel about the paying the mom thing when I first thought of it my instincts started jumping all around, but then when I thought of it logically (without my uterus doing the thinking), I knew that it was right. Its not fair that women have the children for so many hours when the father should be spending time with the child. I mean come on, most men only spend FOUR days out of a month with their children compared to the 27 days that the mother is with the children. The mother winds up not having a life while the father gets to come and go as he pleases, no strings attached. I feel that it is even more difficult for women to date or establish a relationship with someone else because they simply do not have much time away from the kids. The man does not have this problem. He can go on vactions, week-end trips, out to dinner, ect....at the drop of a hat. He feels no guilt about sending the kids to the sitter because guess what he does not have the kids and he can always count on the mother to be their tending to his kids just like a good mommy while he gets to go out and do as he pleases. I am sorry, but it just is not right that men get to fork over a support payment and thats it. While the mother stays at home and struggles along dealing with and raising the kids alone.
Men should be allowed and fight for their right to see their kids. Another thing that most women do not consider is the fact that statistics show that fatherless kids are more likely to commit suicide, runaway, become homeless, drop out of school, and commit crimes. I do not think that kids are BETTER off just being left just with the mother. They need their fathers. The statistics prove that.
My entire point in posting the wage thing for moms was to make men wake-up, stop gripping about the amount of money they pay to support their child, HOPEFULLY make them want to spend more time with their kids, and to let women know that they are being taken advantage of. Some women feel that taking care of their kids all the time is not a disadvantage, but if they looked at the statistics of what could potentially result from children not being around their fathers they would see that it is a disadvantage to the child.

Good heavens woman, start using the right orifice to speak! Within the confines of a marriage, men and women can make their own choices regarding responsibliies. Yes, women in most relationships tend to do more of the stereotypical "domestic chores," but the men in those relationships tend to do more manual labor type chores.

When it comes to joint custody, the mother is usually the one who gets physical custody and the father gets visitation. This is not because the father doesn't want to spend ample time with his children, he usually gets significantly less visitation than he thinks is acceptable. As the children get older, his time with the children is most significantly affected by the children having their own lives and not wanting to miss certain social activities. Additionally, the reason physical custody is not split 50/50 is because #1 most courts don't support it (based on outdated social norms) and #2 it's not really in the child's best interests for thie child to be shuttling between two homes, especially when the parents don't live very close to each other and in the same school district.

There are as many manipulative women who are lousy mothers trying to screw men over as there are deadbeat dads. If the mother feels that she's so put upon by the responsibilities she chose to accept, she should try to rectifiy the wrong she most probably created when she decided to stick it to her ex instead of putting the best interests of her child(ren) first.

No way did she have more than the father. The responsibility is equal there, no one held a gun to your head to have sex.

This is what I see...

I only repeated the words you used like "typical mother." How does it feel? Do you feel you are one of these typical mothers?


I've gone to court on almost a monthly bases, and it made some things worse and some things better. Going to court has not solved the problem. I can post one of my appeals and provide evidence and point out some problems with court and the court mediators. In fact, I am headed to court Nov 23, 2004, tommorow. Before you even posted that message today, I called an attorney earlier today to review the documents that was sent back to me which the judge did not sign to figure out why. Those documents would complete my paternity.


Do you know that the child support agency is not suppose to act as attorney for one party or the other, but they do. They speak for and represent one party in court. They are suppose to represent the children. Do you know they file stuff against me, but I can't file anything against them. I have several issues to bring up with them. You mention inability to pay. You do not even know what my support payments were even based on. It all started after Northridge Earthquake 1994. I went on disaster duty and worked much overtime with per diem. I worked well over 110 hours a week. In that time away, the ex found the time to cheat on me and spend all my money on parties with her friends and not include me. The court looked at that pay rate at 110 hours a week and based the child support on that. The were suppose to base an "ability to pay" figure on her, but they didn't. I even told the court that I don't expect to continue to work 110 hours a week become we can't expect another freak'n Northridge Earthquake to happen. They didn't care. Like you don't seem to care about why my support payments are so extraordinary, but know you have a clue. Do you think my support payments are typical with it based at 110 hours a week plus overtime plus per diem at a temporary job which was the most I by that age? As soon as the overtime was cut, what do you think happened to my support payments? They didn't automatically go down. I tried to contact the child support agency, but I didn't get a response. It took me seven years later to finally get a modification in the support payments. You would go nuts if you saw my interest payments alone -- just the freak'n interest payment without the child support amount. That interest gets compounded more than that $10,000 wage you want each year. That's what some people get at min. wage.

Go ahead and try to argue that I should be able to get a job that pays that much again, and I'll tell you how I have tried that also.





Have you ever tried to call the father of your children and set up arrangements on your own so the children can see their dad and enjoy that quality and quantity time?

My first wife never ever called me about the kids. You want to be like her, typical?

The second mother doesn't call me anymore. She did for awhile, but now she lowered herself to a typical woman.

The third mother... well... now there is a beautiful REAL WOMAN. She has got children from two father and she makes sure the kids see both fathers. If we waited for the court to act on the paperwork before she brought over the kids, I would have not been able to see kids because the judge still hasn't signed the paperwork. She has a mind of her own and can make her own opinion. She doesn't need the court. We need the judges signature to make the state records department to fill in the blanks on the birth cirtificate with my name.

There are other ways to do things beside court. Personally, I kind of find it romantic to stay out of the courts. Just the things that we have to do together to make things work without the court is... well... you would have to be a real woman to know!

I do think started over for a better life. That comment of ParentOfChild really hit the spot when I needed it. "They can't take you birthday away." Luckily when I was on the streets they didn't take away my clothes either. So, I have two victories. I'm not much for God anymore knowing that the president of the stake (church) I went to was responsibile for my divorce papers and screwed me over, but God bless Labor Ready! I got back on my feet.

Im a father, the child is mine, thankfully the mother is not!! I pay more then half of expenses my child has. The fact is mothers fight to keep kids and get money. My ex threatened to take money and never let me see my kid. The system is drastically out of whack and to tell you the truth, after an argument btween my wife and son (he is 15) she threatened him by saying she won't buy him food anymore! Hey hows that, Im paying for over half of it. Is she going to refund it so I can drop off food for my son? Thankfully my sisters and mother live close by and fed my kid until my ex calmed down. I knew she would, but I could take her to court, win custody and make her pay support to my child. She says about support that its hers, But really its not, Its support for my child!! The abuse of that very principal by women is horrible. She couldn't get alimony, because she makes more money then me, due to the college education she got while I paid the bills at home. So in effect I educated her, now I send money for him that she considers hers, and now read this kind of dribble? Get real!!!

Wow, I see I've been away from the site for a while here today. I hardly know where to start, so I'll just dive into it with random thoughts.

First, of all, joint physical custody is practically nonexistent. The single largest barrier to good dads spending more time with their kids is a court order, not a lack of desire. Obviously, we need to locate the horse before we can even begin to think about putting it before the cart. Until we have presumptive joint custody laws (the horse) the rest of your post is rather moot.

Second, are there any other jobs that you are aware of that pay $3.13 per hour while the employee sleeps? If so, I'm interested.

Third, shouldn't the mother and father pay their child's school teacher $3.13 per hour while he/she watches over their child during the school day? Let's not forget to pay the bus driver, or head of extracurricular activities either. If and when the child spends time at a friend or relative's house that money needs to be forwarded accordingly.

Fourth, in fairness, any of the remaining money needs to be subtracted from what ever money that may have been paid in alimony, because that is a full time job too.

Fifth, there needs to be some type of rebate to account for any household chores the child may be doing on the mother's time, since this is time that the mother was to be professionally watching over the child.

Finally, if the father is to be the one required to pay these types of amounts to have someone watch over his kid, he ought to have the option of choosing who he hires as any other parent would have in choosing a baby-sitter. As such, if he were to choose himself, I guess that would make the mother responsible for picking up the tab, wouldn't it?

Great reply, and excellent examples of why the topic isnt reasonable or logical.

[quote=bjh,Nov 22 2004, 07:37 PM]This is what I see...

I only repeated the words you used like "typical mother." 
Yes you did and you distorted the meaning.

[QUOTE]How does it feel? [/QUOTE]
~~It does not bother me because I am REALLY a loving and caring parent.

[QUOTE]Do you feel you are one of these typical mothers?[/QUOTE]~~I said earlier FYI: I am one of those mothers that you spoke so highly of. That is I let my ex of the hook financialy and physically.

[QUOTE]I've gone to court on almost a monthly bases, and it made some things worse and some things better. [/QUOTE]
~~A mother would keep going until the judge let her see her child. Thats the difference.

[QUOTE]Going to court has not solved the problem. I can post one of my appeals and provide evidence and point out some problems with court and the court mediators. In fact, I am headed to court Nov 23, 2004, tommorow. Before you even posted that message today, I called an attorney earlier today to review the documents that was sent back to me which the judge did not sign to figure out why. Those documents would complete my paternity.[/QUOTE]~~I wounder why the judge did not sign them. Hmmm, I wonder what could have possibley prevented such an action.

[QUOTE]Do you know that the child support agency is not suppose to act as attorney for one party or the other, but they do. They speak for and represent one party in court. They are suppose to represent the children. Do you know they file stuff against me, but I can't file anything against them. I have several issues to bring up with them. [/QUOTE]
~~Again everyone else is to blame and your actions has nothing to do with all of your so called victimization.

[QUOTE]You mention inability to pay. You do not even know what my support payments were even based on. [/QUOTE]
~~Yes I do you have repeated this same story over and over again.

  [QUOTE]It all started after Northridge Earthquake 1994. I went on disaster duty and worked much overtime with per diem. I worked well over 110 hours a week. In that time away, the ex found the time to cheat on me and spend all my money on parties with her friends and not include me. [/QUOTE]

~~Just wondering how long you were gone? IF it was a long time and she did not want you to go and was unable to see you during the time, I don't blame her. If you were gone a long time then you abandoned your family for your job. Truck drivers always have the same excuse.

[QUOTE]The court looked at that pay rate at 110 hours a week and based the child support on that. The were suppose to base an "ability to pay" figure on her, but they didn't. I even told the court that I don't expect to continue to work 110 hours a week become we can't expect another freak'n Northridge Earthquake to happen. They didn't care. Like you don't seem to care about why my support payments are so extraordinary, but know you have a clue. [/QUOTE]
~~ I have a clue that you just want a pity part. I will agree that the ruling was unfair, but then again I highly doubt that I am getting the whole story.   

[QUOTE]Do you think my support payments are typical with it based at 110 hours a week plus overtime plus per diem at a temporary job which was the most I by that age? As soon as the overtime was cut, what do you think happened to my support payments? [/QUOTE]
~~One question did you ask the judge at your FIRST custody hearing (before the ruling was made on child support) to have joint PHYSICAL custody of your kids? If not why?

[QUOTE]They didn't automatically go down. I tried to contact the child support agency, but I didn't get a response. It took me seven years later to finally get a modification in the support payments. You would go nuts if you saw my interest payments alone -- just the freak'n interest payment without the child support amount. [/QUOTE]

~~Nope I would not go nuts because I think that there is no amount of money that would equal the payment of your time missed with your kids.

[QUOTE]That interest gets compounded more than that $10,000 wage you want each year. [/QUOTE]
~~I do not want the money I want fathers to start spending time with their kids. EQUAL time.

That's what some people get at min. wage.


[QUOTE]Go ahead and try to argue that I should be able to get a job that pays that much again, and I'll tell you how I have tried that also.[/QUOTE]

~~Have you ever written a letter to your congressmen, rallied with other fathers, or picked demanding to have EQUAL time with your kids?

[QUOTE]Have you ever tried to call the father of your children and set up arrangements on your own so the children can see their dad and enjoy that quality and quantity time?[/QUOTE]~~Yes I called him once a month for a year. After he missed seeing his child for a year, I called to see if he would ever want to see our son. He said NO and that he did not want to be with his child because it just did not work for him and that he just wanted to be left alone. Thus, I left him alone. I never ask nor received child support. It was for the best because he ended up in prison for 15 years for a violent crime.

[QUOTE]My first wife never ever called me about the kids. You want to be like her, typical?[/QUOTE]

~~Bull, I do not believe that she is typical. If you were a good father when you were with her and spent a lot of time with your kids, she likely would have wanted you to be with your kids. My guess is that you went of to work out of state for a long time and left her to raise the kids alone. She likely assumed this meant that other things in your life were more important to you than your kids and your relationship with her.

[QUOTE]The second mother doesn't call me anymore. She did for awhile, but now she lowered herself to a typical woman.[/QUOTE]
~~Again you are always the vicim. I really doubt that you are the vicim. I bet that she found out who you really are and said I don't want him around my kids or me.

[QUOTE]The third mother... well... now there is a beautiful REAL WOMAN. She has got children from two father and she makes sure the kids see both fathers. [/QUOTE]

~~A REAL WOMAN would not have pragnant by another man while she was married. She is truly the one that is not a typical mother (in my view of typical and not your twisted and distorted view of the typical mother).

[QUOTE]If we waited for the court to act on the paperwork before she brought over the kids, I would have not been able to see kids because the judge still hasn't signed the paperwork. She has a mind of her own and can make her own opinion. She doesn't need the court. [/QUOTE]
~~You just do not want the courts involved because they do not love you and are therefore, able to see thru your crap.

[QUOTE]We need the judges signature to make the state records department to fill in the blanks on the birth cirtificate with my name.[/QUOTE]~~If she is such a good woman and cares for you so much, why didn't she put your name on the birth certificate in the first place?

[QUOTE]There are other ways to do things beside court. Personally, I kind of find it romantic to stay out of the courts. Just the things that we have to do together to make things work without the court is... well... you would have to be a real woman to know![/QUOTE]
~~Sounds to me like you are still hung-up on this woman and that any interaction with her (especially without others involved) gives you a false belief a intimate relationship with this woman. What do the judges know about you that she does not and that you don't want her to know?


[QUOTE]I do think started over for a better life. That comment of ParentOfChild really hit the spot when I needed it. "They can't take you birthday away." [/QUOTE]

~~But they took your kids away. If I were you and if you really love your kids and do not want them to turn out like the majority of fatherless kids (without a future) then I would start writing letters to change the way that judges rule on physical custody. I would fight to see my kids 50% of the time. Luckily when I was on the streets they didn't take away my clothes either.  So, I have two victories.   

~~Pity, Pity, Pity. Always the victim.

[QUOTE]I'm not much for God anymore knowing that the president of the stake (church) I went to was responsibile for my divorce papers and screwed me over, but God bless Labor Ready! [/QUOTE]
~~Now you are even blaming god. When are you going to grow-up and take responsibility for not only what has happend to you, but for what is happening to your kids?

[QUOTE]I got back on my feet.[/QUOTE]
~~Does not sound like on your feet to me. Sounds more like sulking and hidding out.

[/quote]
[QUOTE]

Jolene, if you were a really loving and caring parent then you would not make presumptions or accusations unless you really knew the facts. You don't know me enough, so don't pretend like you do.

For example, you accused me of being out of state with my work I suspect for when I got paid per diem. I think you need to go to school and get educated to understand what "per diem" encompasses. You assumed I was away from my family for more than a day when I was married.

Going to court cost time or money and usually both. It costs time away from the job and time away from the family. Any responsible parent can easily assess that it is better to works things out amongst themselves than to fight about it in court.

If your ex doesn't want the kids, that is no excuse to go around and bash all men like they all don't want their kids. You told me to "grow up." That's is low.

I'll talk to you when you can act more professional. (And, learn how to use the text editor!)

First post in this forum:

I understand where Jolene is coming from. There are plenty of fathers that don't want their kids. My sweetheart's ex paid cash out the ying yang, but in ten years, only visited with his teenager-my step son- once. I don't know what was in this man's head, if he deserved to be called a man. He was free to stop and pick his son up at ANY time. The only condition placed on him was that he was not allowed to drink alcohol when he had the boy.

Jolene, there are bad people on both sides of the gender issues. Think of what would happen to your relationship with your children if you were reduced to being a visitor in their lives. I'm sure you'd say it would make no difference; but that's a fantasy. Check out the reality. That's what happens to many men. I've visited and talked with these men. Many of these men continue to pay full CS, even though they were able to get the mother to agree to fifty-fifty time.

Before a person gets a label as "bad" or "good", there needs to be an equal standing in the eyes of the law, as in a presumption for joint custody.

Before someone can fight to get fifty-fifty, they need money. This money, IF available, is spent on courts and lawyers instead of the children, and not just once, but many times, and with tens of thousands of dollars. There should be no need to "fight' for what is right. Any parent worth that title will realize that equal parenting is best for the kids.

Have you seen those commercials and billboards where the announcer tells a young woman she will be grounded for eighteen years when she has a kid?

That's the way it should be for BOTH parents that choose to bring a child into this world. Their life as they know it is over. It's all about the children now, whether together or split-up. Neither parent should be able to "get on with their lives" as they see fit. What is best for a child is to have both biological parents live close to each other, and split costs and time equally. If one parent decides to move away for better pay, love-life, etc, the onus of additional monetary support should be on the mover, because the parent that stays, now has the child, and expenses, most of the time. That's where your "extra pay" should come from.

If a woman feels she deserves extra money for doing what she chooses, and what the courts allow, her heart is not in the right place. Isn't the joy of raising a child it's own reward? Now you want to dirty it with cash and make it into a JOB?

My first post too. This is laughable. I am involved inthe NY civil rights council. We are fighting to get presumptive joint custody for all divorcing parents who are legally fit to have the children. Right now, the split is roughly 80% mothers have full custody, 20% of parents have either joint or father custody. This is not because fathers are sitting idly by and letting it happen. I have been to court to see a mother tell lies about her ex in order to get custody. I have watched a judge not allow evidence from the father showing on video the violent behavior of the mother, yet allow heresay testimony on the 'controlling' nature of the father. The courts set up the situation which you are so angry about. Let me tell you that there are thousands of fathers who would give their right arm to have your 'problem' of having to raise their children. To them having their children is a privilage denied them by the very government they pay for.

Maybe in some cases the father is not around. Well, that happens. But more often the father would be there if allowed, and is shoved away by the mother and the courts. When presumptive 50/50 joint custody is the law in all the states, THEN you may have a reason to post what you did. Until then, it is simply either ignorance or greed which spawned that post. I am sincerely hoping it was ignorance, because the other is just sick.
Jen

Each parent should pay an equal amount of the bills (unless one volunteers to pay more). As far as seeing the children equally that would be nice but it isn't going to happen. Let's stick to winning the battles that can be won.

That depends on their previous relationship. If the mother had been a stay at home mom and the father pursued a career, then that should be and IS considered. Women who sacrifice their careers to be stay at home moms, while the husband build up their careers, should not be penalized. MOtherhood is not valued as it should be by our society. (SS for instance).

Not to mention, women do not make equal pay for equal work. It's not a black and white issue and should be considered case by case.

What does end up happening more often than not, is women end up paying more as they usually end up with custody, except in the cases of the very wealthy. Men in the middle income brackets pay only a small percentage of their salary.

Single mothers are the poorest segment of our society. They are getting the short end of the deal.

Facts about child support in middle income brackets:

1) Guideline amounts are typically around 20% of the obligor's take home pay, plus health ins., plus day care or after school. Paying 1/3 of income for one child is not atypical.
2) Child support is tax free money to the CP, that is paid from the NCP's income after he pays taxes. Its tax implications are opposite alimony.
3) Although CP's typically get the income tax deduction for the child, because the govt is giving this amount to parents to offset expenses for kids, child support does not consider this gift. If the deduction results in an additional $1,200 of after tax income to the obligee, then it should reduce the amount of CS by $100 per month.
4) The vast majority of moms work both before and after their children are born. If a wife has never worked, and her absence of skills limits her ability to earn a living, then of course that is a factor to be considered when determining alimony. But, it has nothing to do with setting child support guidelines.
5) The financial responsibility required of CP's leaves children to go naked, hungry, and homeless if they are to spend any time at the NCP home.
6) The financial responsibiity required of NCP's in income shares states is that they share the financial burden for their child at the CP home proportionate to their incomes. In obligor only states, NCP's are required to shoulder all of the financial responsibility for their child.


What is this small percentage you speak of?

huh? isn't there a chat for this stuff elsewhere. I am not commenting on this stuff becasue it is nunya (as in nunya darn business)...
there will always be inequities in the system, like the solomon example you can't divide the child in half and give each half to each parent all the time.
but most of problems come down to the two parents either not being willing to work together or not being allowed to do so. Call Dr. Phil

I'm a mom, but have never been divorced or dealt with custody issues from that end of things, so I can't speak to either side. I HAVE, however, been the CHILD of the divorce.

I could go through the whole story (maybe another post LOL), but I'll just say that my brother and I WERE shuffled between two homes for about a year after the divorce. My mom wanted to make sure that we had ample time with my dad (the only of his way too many wives to do so), so although my mom was the CP on paper, we had equal access. School wasn't an issue, since at the time we went to a private school, so there wasn't a school district issue to worry about. We spent one week with mom, then one week with dad.

It didn't work out. There is a feeling of unsettledness - here you have your family tearing apart underneath your feet and NOW you can't even have a bedroom, a refuge, to call your own. How would you feel if you spent every other week in a different house? Trust me, it's not fun. My dad had access to us whenever he wanted, and to this day I have a good relationship with him - probably the closest of any of my siblings (half or whole).

The issue, I think, isn't necessarily one of percentage of time, it's one of ABILITY to have access at any time. Even though I didn't spend 50% of the time with my dad, I still have a good relationship with him. There were no boundaries there. The problem comes in when a parent lets lawyers and courts take the issue to places it never should have been in the first place. I wish there were a law to lock two parents in a room with nothing but delivered food and drink with the stipulation that they couldn't come out until they'd hammered out a custody agreement themselves, without a judge involved.

As for taking care of the children all the time, and whether or not you want that, then you need to decide that when you have kids. Widowed parents do it - they have no choice and no one to complain about when the going gets tough. Are you willing to take care of a child 24/7 in the event of divorce or death of spouse? My mom did it - and STILL gave my dad equal access despite the fact that he fell WAY behind on child support payments (and then he payed for our college education as a way of making up for the missed child support payments). My mom wanted what was in our best interest. Had my dad said, "Not interested," she wouldn't have bashed him (and ooooh does it make me mad when I hear mothers doing that to their ex-husbands in front of the kids), but she wouldn't have made excuses for him either, and it would have been HIS loss when he didn't have a relationship with us, and we would have known it.

Ask a few children of divorce what they think of some of these ideas before you call them better.

Unfortunately, government has overstepped its authority. Statutes in practically every state have taken the authority of fit parents out of the equation. No one is in disagreement when unfit parents are the issue. However, big brother now decides what should be done in all cases. Judges now determine what is in the best interests of children, rather than fit parents, the results of which for chidlren has been devastating.

Ahh, I didn't understand that. I have a lot of problems with the things on which "Big Brother" thinks he knows better than I, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

Answer me this, though - if both parents go in and say, "This is what we want", is that considered? Or, if the decree is already in place, and both parents decide it's not adequate for the kids, can't the custodial parent just do what is best for the kids without a court date? Specifically, are there legal repercussions if both parties agree to stray from the decree in a particular manner?

Ultimately, does it come back to the parents not agreeing in the first place (necessitating the courts)?

I read an article a few years ago about a couple that got divorced, each got their own apartment and kept the kids in the house. ..the parents were the ones who shuttled between homes because they didn't want the kids to feel unsettled. Now those are parents who put their kids first, pity there aren't more of them.

I agree.

Think about what you just asked, "if both parents go in and say, "This is what we want", is that considered?" Yes, courts typically oblige parents' requests when both are in agreement. But, who in the he** is the court to have any say about the matter at all, when both parents are already in agreement? Somehow they have been turned into God or something and have the keys to all wisdom - NOT!! Look at the results, that's about all that needs to be said.

Courts are able to interpret a law, that’s what they are good for. Courts are horrendous places to determine the best interests of children. Parents are best suited to determine what is in their kids' best interests. Any yoyo that just fell off the turnip truck can figure that out. Maybe courts will come to their senses and tell fit parents what anyone else would, "It's your kid, you figure it out."

I don't even want to hear about, what if the parents disagree? Guess what, parents have disagreed with each other for a long time now, and probably always will. Married parents disagree about matters of great importance to their children, but a court does not step in to decide. Parents in joint custody disagree too. Maybe that had something to do with them getting the divorce in the first place - go figure. Guess what again, courts stay out of it. The welfare of these kids far surpasses their counterparts in sole custody.

Finally, if in fact it were beneficial for courts to determine the best interests of kids, then aren't married parents being deprived of a major benefit that divorced parents are able to petition the court for? If so, the wisdom of the court in raising kids would be an incentive to divorce. The whole argument put forth by those who place such discretion with the court defies common sense.

The thing is, isn't it the parents who are asking the court to intervene? When you get a party who is out to stick it to the ex-spouse no matter what (and just from my small anecdotal evidence, it's the ex-wife trying to stick it to the ex-husband, even in the case of my dad where there was enough blame to go around the world twice and then some), then they're not considering the best interests of the kids. Maybe if they were thinking of someone other than themselves, maybe they wouldn't see the need to "stick it to the ex". These parents are just using their kids to get the other, and since the court already decides what happens to the marital assets, the kids end up being defined as a marital asset. Sad.

Don't get me wrong - court intervention in any form gives me the creeps, because it erodes our rights as parents, even when the right in question has nothing to do with divorce (try to connect the 'hs' in my username to the fact that most of my posts are on the education forum). So I agree with you that the courts should be hands off in saying "Deal with it yourselves!" Maybe there would be more amicable divorces if parents knew they wouldn't be able to use their kids to get to their exes. I don't know if there is any good solution.

For me personally, there are some things on which I disagree with my husband, but generally, they're small potatoes to both of us, and after a rational discussion, we've figured out what's going to work. So we've never really disagreed on a matter of great importance. I guess I'm a little naive on that one.

I do agree that in general parents, not the courts, are the best judge of what's in the best interest of their kids. Unfortunately, the clarity and common sense of many yo-yos were skewed after their fall from the turnip truck, considering how many people think that parents can't be trusted to figure out and meet the needs of their own kids on many, many issues (spread over many, many forums).

No, it's not the parents who are asking the court to intervene. It is typically only one parent. If courts and statutes didn't make it so much of a winner take all game, then not as many people would play. It's not coincidence that those who know they are likely to win are the ones filing for the divorces.

Not as many people are yoyos as you think. Regardless of who posts on these boards, the vast majority of people do know that both parents should be meaningful parts of their kids' lives. 85% qualifies as a super majority.

Let courts interpret laws like they are supposed to do. They need to get out of deciding what is in the best interests of children.

This subject does not take into account the likely disparity in income levels and earning potential between parents. Before we attempt to straighten out this particular quandry, perhaps we need to address equal pay and equal opportunity rights first. I have no doubt that most women, making as much money as their ex spouses, would gladly share the children's time. I think we must start with the premise that both parents love their children and want what is best for them. Then we must recognize that no child loses when given ample attention from BOTH parents. This is about responsible parenting and accepting that this issue must include the recognition of income disparity in order to proceed .

Assuming you are talking about each parent sharing the financial expense for their child, I totally agree that any income disparity ought to be considered. The needs of the child should be shared between the parents based on their ability to pay. As such, the needs of the child should be given precedence over any parental label that may have been bestowed upon a parent by our infalable "puke" court system, which believes it can best determine children's interests, rather than their parents.

If costs for providing food, shelter, clothing, transportaion, etc... is $600 per month at the CP home, and $300 per month at the NCP home, and the NCP makes twice as much money, then any equitable formula would have the NCP pay $300 per month to the CP in the form of child support. If the incomes were equal, then the NCP should pay $150 per month in such circumstances. If the CP made twice as much as the NCP, then no child support should be paid from one parent to another. It seems fairly simple. But apparently, neither our court system, nor our legislature has grasped basic Algebra.

In order to proceed, what is needed is for legislators to read a pre-algebra book.

Actually, I was referring to more than just rights of parents in custody matters.

Amen, Alleluia, Thank you for telling it like it is. The scenario gets worse with a wife abandoned with a developmentally disabled adult child. My husband abandoned us 4 years ago after 21 years of marriage, and all I could do was spin my wheels looking for fulltime work with benefits, get on my feet with the help of my parents, and start searching for answers for my son ( I say "my" because husband, though the natural father, decided son's "adulthood" makes his fatherhood null and void.) I finally got the correct diagnosis of my son over 2 years after husband left, Asperger's Syndrome, an autistic spectrum disorder that causes dependency through adulthood. My husband filed a "no fault" divorce against me last October 2004, and luckily I had the knowledge to counterpetition with dependent child for relief ( I found out on our county's courthouse website that "no fault" only means something when it is uncontested!) My husband has the money to file and to hire a lawyer, but has not mailed a check since Nov. 2000..
oh yeah, he claims to be a church-goer too, while giving money to his adulterous desires. Well, just because you park your butt in a pew doesn't make you a car!
For the Moms out there that need the Dad's money, check your county's websites for intructions and forms ... as long as you have the evidence, FOLLOW THE DEADLINES and use the CORRECT FORMS, you can do much of this by yourself (free consultation from lawyers does not hurt.) In my state you can file for child support WITHOUT a divorce if you are seperated.

Sorry if some of this is repetitive. My computer is going VERY slow today.

Based on personal experience (my parents) when the time came for my husband and I to part, we agreed that the common goal really was "in the best interest of the kids". Contacting lawyers totally dashed that goal! There was plenty of blame to go around. BUT...IF WE REALLY MEANT WHAT WE SAID, we saw the more we involved the court system, the more mired and antagonistic we both became.

It took both of us swallowing our pride and going forth together to ensure the least amount of impact for our son's. My husband (we have remained legally separated for the last 4 years), made much more money then I did. Following the court ordered fomula would have provided a financial windfall for me. The potential for negative feelings out weighed the financial security in my opinion...Do you know how carefully I was questioned, in regards to what I was willing to give up. My attorney made a statement in court that I was going against his advice.

It still has proved the right solution for my family. My kid's KNOW they are not the problem. They know they have the flexibility to spend time with either of us
without concerns for loyalty. Financially, BOTH MY EX and myself have helped each other out in times of trouble.

The lack of stress for the kids and for each other is PRICELESS! Not too many months ago, my younger son commented to me, in the effect of: We are so glad
you and Dad made your separation about you and not us. It is awful what has been happening to some of my friends. It's great to decide about where and when I want to spend some time, and not worry about hurting either of your feelings.

I have female friends, (and relatives, including my own sister) who believe I have lost my mind. I think my proof is in the results, and even during my most dire financial times, have not second guessed what I have done. The boy's well being
has been worth every dime I may have foregone. IMO - that is what the prize is, and the reward for keeping my eye on the prize.

In my case, I did the same thing, bit the financial bullet to keep the peace, but when hubby filed no-fault three months ago after 4 years of abandonment, I had no choice but to counter-petition for relief. He refuses to donate a red cent to me, claims that our 24-year-old can be "independent" . He has no clue what it means to be the guardian of an adult that is developmentally disabled. Unfortunately, the adultery came in to play after he left , so he is ,excuse me , thinking with his penis and not his wallet. My son and husband made arrangements to go out tonite to see Lemony Snicketts, and I made sure son knew he could go with his Dad. They are out now, having fun. But legally, I say all I need to say in the answers and responses to his lawyer which I file with the court (I take time off work to be my own lawyer, saving $4000 in retaining fees). If I do not secure all my and our son's entitlements now from my husband, the future will be too unknown without the security of the court system. I cannot afford to give up one penny considering I will be my son's guardian always .