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 10 Sep 2008 00:14 -- [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:7876c2d7-9bd4-484a-af84-105f5942f8f5(a)79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... On Sep 9, 3:46 pm, whatamess <mudanz...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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... Women abusing the court system, being deadbeat and lazy, and milking men for money is indeed a problem and I'm glad you pointed it out, but those problems should be dealt with on a case by case basis and not solved with a blanket argument that child support is inherently wrong and should be abandoned. ***************** In spite of the fact that it IS inherently wrong and should be abandoned? ****************** Just because some people get screwed by excessive credit card interest rates doesn't mean credit card fees in general should be outlawed. In that case credit card companies would go out of business and everybody would lose. If child support was taken away like that more children would lose than gain. **************** PROVE it! ************** You keep pointing out the mental vs monetary needs of children. I don't believe divorce hurts kids. I think BAD MARRIAGES hurt kids. There is a big difference. Most kids are already suffering from a bad marriage and divorce is just the end result of a bad marriage. ******************* Therefore, most kids do NOT suffer from a bad divorce. ********************* The court allows divorce because, well, a government that forces two people to stay together is not a free country is it? ********************* A country that forces a covenant marriage IS a free country. *********************** I'm all for preaching that money can't buy happiness and that a child's mental needs are first and foremost but what does that have to do with collecting child support money from fathers so children can have better financial situations?
From: Chris on 10 Sep 2008 00:25 -- [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:c62e6c93-3ff5-4a34-8412-dcc76edcd69a(a)y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... On Sep 9, 11:52 am, "DB" <Dee...(a)netscape.net> wrote: > > What part of Divorce don't you get? > > Being single doesn't come with the same advantages of whole families, nor > should the government guarantee a lifestyle for anyone regardless of gender > or financial status. > > It's her Idea to send her kid to MIT, let her pay for it, else there's > plenty of affordable colleges within her budget!!!!!!!! Did I say she was whining and expecting government handouts and guaranteees? Where in any of my messages did I say anything about she or I expecting her life to have been a perfect "Leave it to Beaver" family life all this time? The whole purpose of my original post was a simple question concerning a deadbeat father who hadn't paid his child support. ********************** And if this "deadbeat" escapes such oppression, MORE power to him! [For what it's worth, sad day indeed when a man has to take sanctuary in CHINA (of all places) to escape oppression in AmeriKa.] ********************
From: Chris on 10 Sep 2008 00:44 -- [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: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. Not to mention, he would be a great source of money for her first children as well; since "child support" can be spent ANY way she deems fit. But then again, he would be HAPPY to pay since he advocates "child support"! >
From: Chris on 10 Sep 2008 00:44 -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] .. .. "whatamess" <mudanzapr(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d2cadb84-ea22-4a17-8748-104eda5e5190(a)a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... On Sep 9, 1:12 pm, Tomcat <tom_overton_1...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. The child support I pay my ex > gives them the financial freedom to choose to live in a good house in > a good neighborhood within a good school district. > > Yes, of course I know my gf's choice to get divorced resulted in an > inevitable reduced lifestyle. But that doesn't take away the central > fact that the father owes money that could give his son a better life > which was the whole point of this discussion. Sorry, but I do not agree with women just because I am a woman... I also don't disagree with men, just because I am a woman. 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 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 probably divorced him because he didn't overspend and she wanted more and more money, as so many women do... Then when they divorce they use the poor child excuse to attempt to live the life they believe they are entitled to. 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. Seems that it's ok for her to take his right to be with both his father and mother away, but feels cheated when the father takes away the "lifestyle" she expects for her son. By the way, good for you for paying child support and being so concerned about your children's "monetary" lifestyle... ******************* His post made NO indication that he was concerned about his children's lifestyle. And why the compliment for him merely doing what he is LEGALLY REQUIRED to do? [My question is based upon the premise that we are using the classic definition of "child support".] *************************** You should've been more concerned about their "mental" well-being before deciding to divorce their mother...
From: Chris on 10 Sep 2008 00:45
-- [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:r9idnVPRR92xblvVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Tomcat" <tom_overton_1968(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:7876c2d7-9bd4-484a-af84-105f5942f8f5(a)79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 9, 3:46 pm, whatamess <mudanz...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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... > > Women abusing the court system, being deadbeat and lazy, and milking > men for money is indeed a problem and I'm glad you pointed it out, but > those problems should be dealt with on a case by case basis and not > solved with a blanket argument that child support is inherently wrong > and should be abandoned. Just because some people get screwed by > excessive credit card interest rates doesn't mean credit card fees in > general should be outlawed. In that case credit card companies would > go out of business and everybody would lose. If child support was > taken away like that more children would lose than gain. > > You keep pointing out the mental vs monetary needs of children. I > don't believe divorce hurts kids. I think BAD MARRIAGES hurt kids. > There is a big difference. Most kids are already suffering from a bad > marriage and divorce is just the end result of a bad marriage. The > court allows divorce because, well, a government that forces two > people to stay together is not a free country is it? I'm all for > preaching that money can't buy happiness and that a child's mental > needs are first and foremost but what does that have to do with > collecting child support money from fathers so children can have > better financial situations? > > ======= > Most of us believe there is nothing wrong with CS. The problems occur in > the following areas: > > 1. Imputing incomes to set artifically high CS orders. > 2. Establishing arrears retroactively. > 3. Failing to have any accountability for how CS is spent. > 4. Not recognizing any of the expenses an NCP incurs. > 5. Ignoring that 27% of child rearing expenses travel with the children. > 6. Not allowing any consideration for an NCP's visitation expenditures. > 7. Making getting a CS reduction an almost impossible task. > 8. Requiring fathers to work while allowing mothers to not work. > 9. Monitoring NCP CS payments while ignoring CP obligations. > 10. Providing CP's tax benefits and credits for spending tax-free CS income. > 11. Not acknowledging real life changes fathers experience that reduce the > ability to pay. > 12. Forcing non-biological fathers to pay CS for children fathered by other > men. For the record, NCP is code for "father". Oh, I believe there is EVERYTHING wrong with "child support". And so would the government people if they were consistent in their position. > > |