She shouldn't have to pay child support because he makes plenty of money
:sigh:
Short story, my friend has two teen girls who prefer to live with their father. She will not pay child support because she says she can't afford to. This woman's soon to be ex husband is refusing to make the kids available for visitation unless she contributes to them financially.
I have a female family member who said "Women who have hard time supporting themselves shouldn't have to pay child support if her former spouse makes a reasonable income."
thoughts?
But I bet that some family member thinks a man should have to pay support no matter what right? Sorry but I think that is bullshit. The system will milk a man dry in CS but never act against a woman who doesn't pay IF she is even ordered to pay.
Yes, she should be required to pay. BUT he also cannot without visitations because of non-payment just as women shouldn't when men fail to pay. They are NOT tied together. They are 2 separate issues.
However, there's probably a REALLY GOOD REASON the two teen girls don't want to live with their mother.
Quoting ElitestJen:
She can afford to contribute to their well being. Even $10/mo is better than nothing.
Her selfish behavior may be indicative of why her kids prefer their father.
Quoting OHgirlinCA:Well, if the mother wants to see her children she needs to go to court and get a custody arrangement put in place.
If the father wants child support from the mother, he should take her to court and file for primary custody and child support and see what the courts say.
If the father makes a decent amount more than the mother, it's possible she won't pay any child support, but she still has the right to spend time with her children. Of course, the same can be said if the roles were reversed. Gender doesn't dictate what's "fair".
Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:
Quoting Tara922c:She should have to contribute something. Even if her ex-husband does make good money, he could put the child support away for their children. Now, I think if not paying child support means that the ex-wife would be able to have a little bit more money, and she would be able to take the kids to do fun things when she does have visitation; the nice thing for the ex husband would be to let her slide on the support. If not paying the child support would make the mother a better mother, it may be a good idea for dad to say "Don't worry about it." Same goes for women that make much, much more than their ex-husbands that are just scraping by. I think both parents should contribute, even if it is 100 bucks a month, but if the non-custodial parent is well off and the non-custodial parent is dirt poor, it wouldn't hurt to say, "Keep the 100 bucks, and save it for when the kids come to visit."
Part of the issue is that her ex wants the money and wants to be able to determine how it's spent. She would happily buy them clothes, personal items etc. Still, there's more to child care than apparel.
Quoting colljd02:
He has custody though, so he determines how the money is spent. Even if it goes toward an investment for the children or a college savings plan. That's his choice.
Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:
Quoting Tara922c:She should have to contribute something. Even if her ex-husband does make good money, he could put the child support away for their children. Now, I think if not paying child support means that the ex-wife would be able to have a little bit more money, and she would be able to take the kids to do fun things when she does have visitation; the nice thing for the ex husband would be to let her slide on the support. If not paying the child support would make the mother a better mother, it may be a good idea for dad to say "Don't worry about it." Same goes for women that make much, much more than their ex-husbands that are just scraping by. I think both parents should contribute, even if it is 100 bucks a month, but if the non-custodial parent is well off and the non-custodial parent is dirt poor, it wouldn't hurt to say, "Keep the 100 bucks, and save it for when the kids come to visit."
Part of the issue is that her ex wants the money and wants to be able to determine how it's spent. She would happily buy them clothes, personal items etc. Still, there's more to child care than apparel.
I wouldn't disagree with you
Quoting Billiebeth:Complete BS.
She would not be saying that if the situations were reversed.
She is their mother. She has a responsibility to contribute to their upkeep.
Do you find this to be a waste of money?
- Veni.Vidi.Vici.
on Sep. 17, 2012 at 5:07 PM