child support when father moves to another country?
in [Divorce]
|
Prev: Managing Children Behaviors Through Humor
Next: learn about the most common cause of diseases in women at http://www.cidpusa.org
From: Tomcat on 9 Sep 2008 15:47 On Sep 9, 2:14 pm, whatamess <mudanz...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > And by the way, I love how you began your post about > "the child suffering financally"...yes, the typical woman thing > to get everyone on her side...which as you got more ticked off > you were able to tell the truth which is "he is NOT suffering > financially"...it's just your girlfriend thinks more of money > than of anything else Okay "suffering financially" was an exaggeration on my part, I'll give you that much. But different people have different views of what financial success is. In my circle we are pushing our kids to work towards getting into one of the top colleges and performing to their full potential in an educational environment that fosters that. Sometimes this takes money. Living in a good part of the city in a good school district takes money. Weekend professional coaching to help prepare our children for the SAT exam takes money. Sure, these are luxuries but they are in the interest of the child not the parent. If more Americans focused on the academic needs and opportunities of their kids instead of sports and recreation and video games we would be more competitive with the rest of the world. But again, this post was NOT about my girlfriend whining about not living the good life. This was not about my girlfriend wanting money for the spa and new shoes. This was simply a post about a father who has a LEGAL obligation that he is not fulfilling. Failing to fulfill that LEGAL obligation impacts the environment and opportunities his son has. Period. What is so controversial or wrong with asking a question about that?
From: SamIAm on 9 Sep 2008 15:55 Tomcat wrote: > On Sep 9, 2:14 pm, whatamess <mudanz...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> And by the way, I love how you began your post about >> "the child suffering financally"...yes, the typical woman thing >> to get everyone on her side...which as you got more ticked off >> you were able to tell the truth which is "he is NOT suffering >> financially"...it's just your girlfriend thinks more of money >> than of anything else > > Okay "suffering financially" was an exaggeration on my part, I'll give > you that much. But different people have different views of what > financial success is. In my circle we are pushing our kids to work > towards getting into one of the top colleges and performing to their > full potential in an educational environment that fosters that. > Sometimes this takes money. Living in a good part of the city in a > good school district takes money. Weekend professional coaching to > help prepare our children for the SAT exam takes money. Sure, these > are luxuries but they are in the interest of the child not the > parent. If more Americans focused on the academic needs and > opportunities of their kids instead of sports and recreation and video > games we would be more competitive with the rest of the world. > > But again, this post was NOT about my girlfriend whining about not > living the good life. This was not about my girlfriend wanting money > for the spa and new shoes. This was simply a post about a father who > has a LEGAL obligation that he is not fulfilling. Failing to fulfill > that LEGAL obligation impacts the environment and opportunities his > son has. Period. What is so controversial or wrong with asking a > question about that? > > I think their opinion is that the father has no obligation to provide for his kids if someone else is providing for them. That if the child has more than enough of whatever (such as your case), then the mother is wrong to ask the father to pay. I disagree with them.
From: whatamess on 9 Sep 2008 16:05 On Sep 9, 2:55 pm, SamIAm <iam...(a)drseus.com> wrote: > Tomcat wrote: > > On Sep 9, 2:14 pm, whatamess <mudanz...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> And by the way, I love how you began your post about > >> "the child suffering financally"...yes, the typical woman thing > >> to get everyone on her side...which as you got more ticked off > >> you were able to tell the truth which is "he is NOT suffering > >> financially"...it's just your girlfriend thinks more of money > >> than of anything else > > > Okay "suffering financially" was an exaggeration on my part, I'll give > > you that much. But different people have different views of what > > financial success is. In my circle we are pushing our kids to work > > towards getting into one of the top colleges and performing to their > > full potential in an educational environment that fosters that. > > Sometimes this takes money. Living in a good part of the city in a > > good school district takes money. Weekend professional coaching to > > help prepare our children for the SAT exam takes money. Sure, these > > are luxuries but they are in the interest of the child not the > > parent. If more Americans focused on the academic needs and > > opportunities of their kids instead of sports and recreation and video > > games we would be more competitive with the rest of the world. > > > But again, this post was NOT about my girlfriend whining about not > > living the good life. This was not about my girlfriend wanting money > > for the spa and new shoes. This was simply a post about a father who > > has a LEGAL obligation that he is not fulfilling. Failing to fulfill > > that LEGAL obligation impacts the environment and opportunities his > > son has. Period. What is so controversial or wrong with asking a > > question about that? > > I think their opinion is that the father has no obligation to provide > for his kids if someone else is providing for them. That if the child > has more than enough of whatever (such as your case), then the mother is > wrong to ask the father to pay. > > I disagree with them.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There are THOUSANDS of women who do not work for a living, who are stay at home moms...I don't see you or anyone else in our country screaming saying that the mothers have a DUTY to contribute to the financial security of their children. If you so believe that every parent must provide more than the basics for each child and that even if the basics are already covered by one spouse, that extra money is the RIGHT of the child because all children should be financially supported by both parents, then I suggest you go out and yell and scream and speak up for the thousands of kids who's mom stays at home and does not contribute to their financial well-being. The more you speak the more I realize what is so wrong with this country...Your purpose in life is to provide "financially" for children...it is obviously your belief, as well as your girlfriend's that money is more important than anything else in life. Maybe the reason the guy took off was because your girlfriend had already tried to squeeze every penny out of him and he could no longer handle it...Ah, yes, you will say too bad...but your girlfriend should be more concerned about her child having a good relationship with his dad, than she should be about the money he can give her so that she can manage how "she" sees fit... It's a sad day in this country when so many people are so concerned with money, and much less concerned with the mental well-being of it's society...
From: Tomcat on 9 Sep 2008 16:24 On Sep 9, 2:12 pm, whatamess <mudanz...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > So, your girlfriend who decided to divorce this guy did this knowing > that her lifestyle and that of her son would be reduced...Why exactly > is it that you are not looking at her decision as a contributing > factor to not be able to give her child everything she wanted to begin with This is a totally stupid argument. So you're saying women owed child support money should not try to get that money that is owed to them legally and simply accept the consequences because they shouldn't have gotten divorced in the first place? The decision to divorce is a totally separate and non-related issue from the fact the father owes money to his son. It doesn't matter if the money is a loan, for child support, from a lawsuit for damanges, etc. Why does my local TV station post the names and amounts of the top deadbeat dads in the city? Do you think it's not a big issue to many people? > > Nobody in an intact marriage is entitled to anything...the only > thing those kids are entitled to is food/clothing/shelter...and > shelter is up to the parents...as well as clothing...If your girlfriend thinks > that it's up to her ex to give their son all the extras, then that's > her problem... She expects for her ex to pay what he is obligated to pay by the courts. If that money would contribute to a better life for her child then that's more the reason to want it. Is that so hard to understand? >She probably divorced him because he didn't overspend > and she wanted more and more money, as so many women do... Amazing how you can read one paragraph from a person you've never met and make such a broad assumption. > > And I don't want to hear the "child is entitled to a certain > lifestyle", > the child is actally ENTITLED to live with both their father and > mother, > and in this situation, it was the mother who took that away from him. Nowhere did I say anything about the "child being entitled to a certain lifestyle". That your fictional writing again. What the child is ENTITLED to is what the father owes. The court says that, not me. All I'm doing is asking a question to try to help a single mother and her son get that entitled money. > By the way, good for you for paying child support and being > so concerned about your children's "monetary" lifestyle... > You should've been more concerned about their "mental" > well-being before deciding to divorce their mother So again, you've written a little fictional story about it being my decision to divorce my wife and it being my girlfriend's decision to divorce her husband even though you have zero information about either of us or our past marital situations.
From: whatamess on 9 Sep 2008 16:46
On Sep 9, 3:24 pm, Tomcat <tom_overton_1...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sep 9, 2:12 pm, whatamess <mudanz...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > So, your girlfriend who decided to divorce this guy did this knowing > > that her lifestyle and that of her son would be reduced...Why exactly > > is it that you are not looking at her decision as a contributing > > factor to not be able to give her child everything she wanted to begin with > > This is a totally stupid argument. So you're saying women owed child > support money should not try to get that money that is owed to them > legally and simply accept the consequences because they shouldn't have > gotten divorced in the first place? The decision to divorce is a > totally separate and non-related issue from the fact the father owes > money to his son. It doesn't matter if the money is a loan, for child > support, from a lawsuit for damanges, etc. Why does my local TV > station post the names and amounts of the top deadbeat dads in the > city? Do you think it's not a big issue to many people? > > > > > Nobody in an intact marriage is entitled to anything...the only > > thing those kids are entitled to is food/clothing/shelter...and > > shelter is up to the parents...as well as clothing...If your girlfriend thinks > > that it's up to her ex to give their son all the extras, then that's > > her problem... > > She expects for her ex to pay what he is obligated to pay by the > courts. If that money would contribute to a better life for her child > then that's more the reason to want it. Is that so hard to > understand? > > >She probably divorced him because he didn't overspend > > and she wanted more and more money, as so many women do... > > Amazing how you can read one paragraph from a person you've never met > and make such a broad assumption. > > > > > And I don't want to hear the "child is entitled to a certain > > lifestyle", > > the child is actally ENTITLED to live with both their father and > > mother, > > and in this situation, it was the mother who took that away from him. > > Nowhere did I say anything about the "child being entitled to a > certain lifestyle". That your fictional writing again. What the > child is ENTITLED to is what the father owes. The court says that, > not me. All I'm doing is asking a question to try to help a single > mother and her son get that entitled money. > > > By the way, good for you for paying child support and being > > so concerned about your children's "monetary" lifestyle... > > You should've been more concerned about their "mental" > > well-being before deciding to divorce their mother > > So again, you've written a little fictional story about it being my > decision to divorce my wife and it being my girlfriend's decision to > divorce her husband even though you have zero information about either > of us or our past marital situations. Just because a court mandates something does not make it ethical or correct. All that means is that someone has convinced the courts to do X, Y or Z...which many states/politicians do only to get elected. So since you believe that both children should be financially supported by children, do you believe that stay at home moms should go to jail or be looked at as being deadbeats because they don't financially support their children? How exactly is it that you can justify what the courts do "because it's a court" and not apply that same injustice to stay at home moms? A perfect example...legally, people must pay their credit card debt even though a credit card company has the right to raise that interest rate to 30%...does that make the 30% interest rate "ethical" or "fair?" No, it does not. It makes it legal to collect, but not ethical or fair. Child support is the same way. The decision to divorce was made by the parents. It is legal to get divorced, but illegal to not pay what the courts say. It is legal to mess up a child mentally, but not legal to not give them the money that someone else claims the child is entitled to, although most of child support is NOT used for the basic needs of a child. Basic needs are food, clothing, shelter...AND peace or mental stability...It's funny how a parent who destroys the mental stability of the child, just because the courts allow it, can then scream about the financial "stability" of the child, although that stability is not at all related to the "basic rights of a child"...and actually, of every citizen of this country. Since you believe so much in what the courts say is "right", I pray for the day that the courts will tell parents of intact families that the MUST pay for college for their kids, that they MUST spend X amount of money on them or they'll be called deadbeats... And about the BS of deadbeat parents on the news, the reason the states do this is because they make so much money from the government by making "deadbeats" pay up...They wouldn't dare say in the same story, "oh by the way, for every 1USD we collect from this idiot, YOUR tax dollars are paying US..." Any mother out there without a job is NOT called a deadbeat by society...they are helped and given all kinds of money from the government...however, as soon as a father is faced with the same circumstances, he is called a deadbeat... It's actually a sad day when men buy into the bs that so many woman have created...the reason there is so much divorce in this country is not because most men are abusive, but because most women have figured out they can make so much money from their ex's... The reason there is so much divorce is because women put "THEIR" mental well being, you know the BS of... "we just drifted apart...I just wasn't in love anymore" or "the sex was no good"...ABOVE the mental well-being of their children...and those same women later use their children to play the victim once again. Real men stand up and think on their own, they don't allow the media or the courts to dictate what is correct or ehtical...obviously, you're more concerned with what the courts say you should do, than with finding out the reality of the child support system and how it is WOMEN who have created this nightmare... |