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: Chris on 9 Sep 2008 23:33 -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "Bob W" <robertg(a)teleport.com> wrote in message news:CqydnaPcyJP6VFvVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Tomcat" <tom_overton_1968(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:7f9bad36-1061-4c80-b33c-f69018301fc6(a)l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 9, 11:50 am, "Bob W" <robe...(a)teleport.com> wrote: > > ======= > > Have you considered not being married to the boy's father is a significant > > cause for a reduced lifestyle? And more importantly, CS is for the > > children, not money to improve a mother's lifestyle. > > CS in my opinion is to support the "family environment" in which the > child will be raised. Most child support payments are more than > enough to cover food and clothing. > > ====== > You came to the right place to get your opinions challenged. > > Child support guideline amounts are based on economic models that use child > rearing expenditures reported by thousands of intact families. CS has > nothing to do with being for the family environment. While I'll agree lots > of custodial parents use the CS money to improve the family environment, it > is because of that behavior people like me favor strict accountability of > how CS is spent. > > One of the most blatant abuses of CS misspending is when a mother receives > CS intended for one child to support her other children in the family > environment. That means the father is supporting children that are not his > biological offspring and his child is suffering financially because his CS > is being used inappropriately. And that's JUST the beginning......... >
From: DB on 9 Sep 2008 23:36 "Bob W" <robertg(a)teleport.com> wrote in message news:wqqdna2JCcB2plrVnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "DB" <DeeBee(a)netscape.net> wrote in message > news:JnGxk.20852$cW3.8780(a)nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com... >> >> "Bob W" <robertg(a)teleport.com> wrote in >> >>> Also your original post noted your GF has enough money to build a >>> college education fund and provide private tutoring, two items that are >>> never covered by CS awards. You got challenged because your comments >>> indicate she has plenty of money to pay for the child's basic child >>> rearing expenditures plus pay for extras like college funding and >>> tutoring. It came off as her sounding greedy. >> >> Actually Bob, I don't even think she knows he's on here asking about >> starting trouble in China! >> He barely knows this woman and thinks he's going to act in her best >> interest. >> >> The fact that he has a daughter and dating other women who he brings into >> her life shows that he's morally corrupt and don't hold many values. >> Sending money for CS is not proof of morals, the law tells him to do it! > > There is another aspect of this the OP needs to understand. If his GF > cannot get any CS money from her ex who now resides in China, if the BF > knocks her up and she claims it's an "Oops", he will be the next financial > meal ticket for her future who is very reachable by the courts. This guy is a sucker for sure, i can here it already, "me Luv you long time, me have babies for you, you give me plenty money!". Maybe he doesn't understand that she takes pride in herself and doesn't want to depend on any man for her son's well being? he's here to save the day, what an idiot!
From: DB on 9 Sep 2008 23:39 "SamIAm" <iamsam(a)drseus.com> wrote in > 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. Pay for what exactly? There's a difference helping to support a child's basic needs and financing a costly lifestyle.
From: Chris on 9 Sep 2008 23:49 -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "Tomcat" <tom_overton_1968(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:053da29e-cc12-4d95-9656-72ddcfbc576f(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... 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. *************** It does nothing of the sort! A NON-cause has a NON-effect. *************** What is so controversial or wrong with asking a question about that?
From: Chris on 10 Sep 2008 00:00
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "Tomcat" <tom_overton_1968(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:6bc53bc7-59d7-43f3-a3d4-066fe942154b(a)y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... 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. ****************** Then that'd be a first, because "child support" orders show the mother, NOT the child, as the obligee. ******************** 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? ******************* Because the liberal media has the financial resources to do so. Oh, and they HATE fathers too. ****************** 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 ********************* .......... or herself, ********************* 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. |