Quote :

"you think your thoughts are valid simply because they exist. thats a problem, but one that can be controlled with modern medicine. "

Be specific. What do I think?


[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 3:24 PM. Reason : If you need help, you can refer to this thread in which I lay out my position]

1/30/2012 3:20:36 PM

has genius boy ever had his iq checked?

i don't know why but i feel its probably no more than 1 std dev from 100. (possibly down)

1/30/2012 3:24:37 PM

you think your pizza place is going to be taken away from you by a woman who shaves your kids hair into a mohawk.

..and you disapprove, right?

1/30/2012 3:24:55 PM

You play chess sumfoo?

1/30/2012 3:30:48 PM

Quote :

"ask theDuke866 how fair it is"

It's not.

My child support--for 1 child--is $1020/month, plus another $15 or something for dental care. When that amount was set, it amounted to about 25% of my income...if my ex filed to have it adjusted now that I've been promoted, it would probably be $1400 or a little more. Also, if she didn't have free healthcare due to me being military, it would be even higher.

It has nothing to do with what the child needs and everything to do with how much money you make. My visitation arrangement gave me 1 week per month and 6 weeks in the summers (and one summer, I had my daughter for over 2 months straight due to the court ordering extra visitation time for me after my ex disregarded the visitation agreement and wouldn't let me have her). Point being, I know how much a kid costs. Daycare is the biggest expense, and that's something like $550/month (at a good but not extravagant place), although that can vary by your location and your kid's age. I figure that I probably spend about another $250/month on my daughter (when I have her for the whole month...obviously it's a lot less if it's just a week or two). That totals up to be about $800/month in total cost (aside from stuff like birthday and Christmas presents, etc), and that is not pinching pennies. Explain to me why my share of $800/month should be $1020 month. Basically, I pay for everything, plus my ex's car payment.

It took over 2 years and something like $11,000 in legal expenses just to defend myself from her crazy demands in court and enforce the visitation order to actually bring my daughter to my house (ending in contempt of court for her and some as-yet unresolved perjury). Yes, that's right--my daughter was over 2 years old the first time I ever got to bring her to my house (minus one time for a couple of hours when she was an infant and her mother lived right across the street from me).

I ended up essentially deciding to flush my military career down the toilet even after I get halfway to retirement, and I moved back to FL to stay so that I can be with my daughter. We're about to go to court for the 4th time, and my legal bills will probably soon hit $20,000, but if all goes well (and I have yet to lose a single thing I've contested so far), I will get true 50% custody and have her alternating weeks with my ex. It will also reduce the child support down to probably $450/month (why I should have to pay that much with her spending equal time with us, I don't know, but it's better than what it is now).

I have had to put up with my ex hiding my daughter from me at neighbor's houses and/or refusing to answer her phone or be at home during times I was supposed to have visitation. She essentially wouldn't let me talk to her while I was deployed (last deployment, I think I got to talk to her twice for a total of my 10 minutes over a period of 7 months). I got home from Iraq after my first deployment, drove to FL that weekend to pick her up (after my ex agreed to it), and then she wouldn't abide by the court order (or what she'd agreed to the day before) once I got down there. After driving 12+ hours, I got to see my daughter for 30 minutes, then go back home. Even recently within the last few months since I've moved back down here locally, she wouldn't put me on the authorized for pick-up list at the daycare (as required by law)--I had to print copies of the court order and take them to the daycare to have it done against her will. I asked her for my daughter's SSN the other day for something I needed--she wouldn't tell me, so I had to acquire it by other means. You get the idea.


I'm pretty sure it's all going to work out in the end, but it is taking years, a lot of work, giving up my career, and spending tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers. Not everyone can do that, and if you can't, you're fucked.

1/30/2012 3:40:32 PM

duke,

mad props for wanting to spend time with your kid and working hard inorder to reach that goal.

Seriously man..

mad props.

1/30/2012 3:45:15 PM

^^ No offense, but your situation is a prime example not to have a kid out of wedlock. It's also the unfortunate consequence of courts automatically favoring the birth mother. It sucks, but I'm glad you will ultimately getting 50/50 custody of your child. Sorry you had to spend all that money, but I'm sure you will agree that it's worth it.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 3:46:56 PM

Quote :

"duke, mad props for wanting to spend time with your kid and working hard inorder to reach that goal. Seriously man.. mad props."

Agreed. You sound like the type of Dad everyone should aspire to be.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 3:47:17 PM

when I saw this thread, I thought of theDuke866 and have been waiting for his input.

the fucked up thing is, if he did anything close to what his ex has done to him he would be locked up. no question.

if you are a honest landlord or a divorced dad in this country, be prepared to get fucked because the law is skewed heavily in the other direction.

1/30/2012 3:47:20 PM

ehh not for this thread.


seriously though i understand that there are lots of women living off child support, but if it was done right, and the kid actually got all that money... weather directly or in a college fund or something it would be ok. But the problem is half the time its the other portion of alimony.


[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 3:48:53 PM

What does that bitch do for a living?

1/30/2012 3:49:53 PM

Quote :

"Also, does child support stop at 18 even if the kid has not graduated from high school?"

That's state law, but in FL at least, and I suspect most states, it continues until HS graduation unless the kid is legally emancipated, or maybe joins the military or something (all assuming a good-faith effort to graduate...like, it stops if your kid was to drop out of school).

Quote :

"Just out of curiosity I know that if a woman gets married after divorce alimony basically stops correct? What about child support? If a woman has a kid and gets divorced and remarries how does that work?"

Alimony stops; child support does not. Remarriage has nothing to do with child support.

Quote :

"And I can't remember if there's a provision that says the first kid gets more than the ones you have in a second marriage, or not. Like you can't have future children to cut down on your previous child support obligations. I'm not sure if I'm remembering that incorrectly from my family law course. "

Again, should be state-law dependent, but I think if you have to start paying child support to a 2nd woman, it is factored in to both support amounts. Not 100% sure, though. I do know that there's some ceiling for total child support no matter how many kids you have, but I think it's something like 75% of your income.




What's fucked is that in FL, at least, my understanding is that there is no cap (other than the % of income for multiple kids). So, like, if you are an NBA player and make $1,000,000/year, your child support would be at least a couple hundred thousand.



I keep giving serious thought to a vasectomy.

1/30/2012 3:50:38 PM

Crazy ol' Geniusxboy, supporting theduke866 from the opening post. Geniusxboy says the craziest things.



[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 3:57:04 PM

Quote :

"No offense, but your situation is a prime example not to have a kid out of wedlock. It's also the unfortunate consequence of courts automatically favoring the birth mother."

Well yeah, I mean, that's obvious!

She was on the patch (at least every once in a while for me to see it). There was one occasion where I didn't use a condom.

I am relatively confident that she got pregnant on purpose (interestingly, after I broke up with her, she started dating another dude and was pregnant again in fairly short order. He ended up marrying her. Also interestingly, even as she was doing all that bad shit to me, she would constantly beg me to marry her, hahaha).

Quote :

" It sucks, but I'm glad you will ultimately getting 50/50 custody of your child. Sorry you had to spend all that money, but I'm sure you will agree that it's worth it."

Yeah, it's worth it.

...but it would be better if it wasn't necessary.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 4:00 PM. Reason : ambiguous syntax]

1/30/2012 3:59:51 PM

I freaking looooooooooooove that last picture!! so adorable!

1/30/2012 4:01:46 PM

Quote :

"No offense, but your situation is a prime example not to have a kid out of wedlock."

stupid statement alert.


Lots of people have kids while they're married and end up in the same situation.

1/30/2012 4:01:58 PM

I would actually say that the courts got it pretty close in his situation regarding child support. He never mentioned what his wife's job was, but I don't remember it being anything significant. So he probably would have had to pay a majority of the child's expenses anyways.

Now custody is a different situation.

1/30/2012 4:02:10 PM

Quote :

"stupid statement alert."

Not really. You face an uphill custody battle as a father anyways...the hill gets a little steeper if you're not married.

If you're married for a certain number of years, have a child[children] and show that you have been a good, supportive parent during that time...your custody argument is going to be a bit stronger than knocking up a girl you've been dating for a few months. You're getting lumped into a bad group from the get-go.

1/30/2012 4:04:44 PM

Quote :

"Crazy ol' Geniusxboy, supporting theduke866 from the opening post. Geniusxboy says the craziest things."

Yeah, not so sure about that. You were spouting out a bunch of idiocy. Duke came in here and stated facts, and logic, to back up his thoughts, and they aren't out of line with what anyone has posted in this thread. Your posts are nothing like his.

1/30/2012 4:05:17 PM

^^^She did/does clerical work and minor medical stuff (taking vitals, etc.) in a doctor's office.

About right? How in the hell is it "about right" that I pay for EVERYTHING and her mother effectively contributes nothing financially, PLUS pockets an additional couple hundred bucks per month or more?

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 4:05:32 PM

^^^where do you get your information

^^yeah, no facts at all. look again dumb bit.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 4:05:40 PM

I believe he's an attorney that does family law...

1/30/2012 4:06:24 PM

^^Eh, everything he said in that post is correct.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 4:06:57 PM

^^^pretty sure he's an attorney, while you are a pizza maker.

i think he wins.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 4:07 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 4:07:32 PM

I really don't understand if you have 50/50 custody why you still have to pay child support. I only think child support should be paid if one parent had custody the whole time.

TheDuke

1/30/2012 4:10:35 PM

Well what he said isn't law, it's bias.


I've done my homework and the divide between Reggie, the black guy with 8 unwed children and John, the white divorced father of two, is slim to none.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 4:12:00 PM

^^because he makes more than his daughter's mother

1/30/2012 4:12:36 PM

Thx.

1/30/2012 4:13:44 PM

Quote :

"I really don't understand if you have 50/50 custody why you still have to pay child support. I only think child support should be paid if one parent had custody the whole time."

The purpose there is to maintain the same standard of living at both homes. So, if the child goes and stays with Daddy, she's not living in a mansion while Mommy gets to live in a cardboard box. That's obviously an extreme example, but the purpose of child custody arrangements are to maintain status quo, so things are the least disruptive for the child as possible. I'm not suggesting it's always the right decision, but it does have a purpose.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 4:15 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 4:14:45 PM

^^^^ more like it isn't right, but it's law

^^^ she's saying that it should be irrelevant if our daughter spends equal time with each of us and we each care for her (financially and otherwise) during that time.


^ Right, that's the purpose. Now, in this case, she lives a perfectly acceptable lifestyle with her mother, anyway...and of that $450 or whatever, that also includes my share of daycare...so really her mom will only be pocketing a hundred or two hundred bucks per month from me, at whatever point I can get the 50% custody worked out. I still don't think that's right, but in the end it's not that big of a deal (aside from the principle).

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 4:14:48 PM

Quote :

"Duke came in here and stated facts, and logic, to back up his thoughts, and they aren't out of line with what anyone has posted in this thread. Your posts are nothing like his."

i disagree with the last sentence.

1/30/2012 4:16:14 PM

Thx. This thread has helped me to talk to my family about things.

1/30/2012 4:16:23 PM

Quote :

"About right? How in the hell is it "about right" that I pay for EVERYTHING and her mother effectively contributes nothing financially, PLUS pockets an additional couple hundred bucks per month or more?"

You make/made a significant amount of money more than the mother at the time of your kid's birth...correct? Had you stayed together, your salary would have been responsible for most of the expenses...correct?

Your "guesstimate" was $200 less than what they came up with? I know it's not perfect...but it's not far off. 25% of your income might not be ideal, but its not gouging. Kids are expensive. They're not going to let you have your kids for a couple months, tally up expenses, and then get back to them with a cost.

It's not perfect by any means, but it's not that far off.

And not all father's get screwed. I just got a mother as a client who got ambushed by an emergency custody hearing. She didn't have an attorney at the time and she got killed in court. I've got a ridiculous uphill battle, but for now she's paying child support for two kids that barely even stay with the father.

Thems the breaks.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 4:17:41 PM

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM. Reason : not relevant]

1/30/2012 4:18:10 PM

Sure, I understand the practical need to be formulaic.

What I'm saying is that it's not just a couple hundred bucks. When that support amount was assigned, let's say I made $60k and her mom made $30k, and let's say that our daughter legitimately costs $750/month (which is probably closer than $800, anyway).

Now, I think there's a case that financial responsibility should be equal, but whatever, I don't really have a problem with paying 2/3 of the expenses, largely because of what you said (I'd be doing it anyway if we were married and combined our finances). That would mean that I should be on the hook for $500/month, not $1020, and her mom should come up with the other $250 on her own.

In reality, I pay for EVERYTHING, her mom pockets another $200-250/month, and THEN I pay for everything (daycare, food, clothes, toys, etc) all over again during the time she spends with me (which amounted to about 30% of the year, excepting when I was deployed somewhere).



I mean, in the grand scheme, as much as the money part of this whole thing infuriates me, it still pales in comparison to the other stuff...but damn I will be happy to reduce my payments to her mother by a few hundred bucks per month.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 4:26 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 4:23:05 PM

The solution to this is simple: You take over a Marine Corps Camp or Air Station. Become the Warlord of Pensacola or wherever. Take your daughter on post and dare anyone to come get her. You've got battalions of Marines and squadrons of jets at your disposal.

It's all too easy.

1/30/2012 4:24:35 PM

Nah, I'm waiting until she starts dating to do that.


(just kidding, I don't think I'll be too overprotective...the idea is to raise her to take care of herself so she won't need me to).

1/30/2012 4:27:08 PM

Quote :

"No offense, but your situation is a prime example not to have a kid out of wedlock. It's also the unfortunate consequence of courts automatically favoring the birth mother. It sucks, but I'm glad you will ultimately getting 50/50 custody of your child. Sorry you had to spend all that money, but I'm sure you will agree that it's worth it."

first, is there a fortunate consequence of courts automatically favoring the birth mother??

Second, the same situation would happen if a married couple got divorced, the mom almost always gets custody and child support

Quote :

"I've got a ridiculous uphill battle, but for now she's paying child support for two kids that barely even stay with the father. "

which you think is perfectly fair, correct?

1/30/2012 5:38:31 PM

I like that people are supporting theDuke and whatnot (I really do!), but it's still crazy to me how much credit people give him for pursuing fatherhood. The bar has been set so low that we're always giving props to someone for working to overcome obstacles so they can spend time with their child...like it's some kind of amazing thing.

As an aside...if fathers in general did a better job, the courts would be more reasonable about this stuff. A lot of the law that's in place was put there in reaction to men being gigantic assholes for hundreds of years. I'm just saying...I'd rather be the child of a single mom today than the child of a single mom fifty years ago.

^It is easier to get some custody if you're married to the person, and some custody means less child support.

1/30/2012 5:58:27 PM

Generally, when I see BridgetSPK post, I want to sleep with her, cuddle, and raise a family with her. But that ^ post makes me just want to sleep with her, get her pregnant, and then leave her.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 6:12 PM. Reason : a]

1/30/2012 6:11:28 PM

I'd probably have to get several DNA tests to prove paternity. But I'd eventually come after you with all the spite/greed/vengeance of every whore in the world combined.

Also, I'd purposefully do a horrible job of raising our kid. When we reconcile and get married, we can visit him or her in prison.

1/30/2012 6:15:12 PM

Ugh, see... you're the kind of psycho woman that would TRY not to get along with the father of your child. I'd leave the country and go to Africa. Good luck finding me there, skank.

1/30/2012 6:18:03 PM

For court, I've documented your use of "skank" as evidence of your verbally and emotionally abusive nature towards me.

If you speak to me that way again, I will file a restraining order.

1/30/2012 6:22:24 PM

as i read theduke's story it makes me feel very fortunate my ex wife did not want to go to court and i was able to negotiate a reasonable amount less than half of what he is paying

1/30/2012 6:23:09 PM

Quote :

"I bet more men will be able to meet their obligations and be happy about it. This is about the kids being supported, right?"

Quote :

"As an aside...if fathers in general did a better job, the courts would be more reasonable about this stuff. "

The OP argued that more men would pay if the child support system were overhauled to be more fair. You're arguing that the courts would be more reasonable if more men paid; shifting the fault to the men involved rather than the broken court system. Two sides to the same story I guess. I think any logical person would have to conclude that regardless of the cause of the issue, a broken system is a broken system, and therefore it should be fixed.

Taking more money from the men who are supporting their children is not going to make up for all the deadbeats out there; nor is it going to help the children of those deadbeats who are receiving nothing.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 6:25 PM. Reason : s]

1/30/2012 6:24:37 PM

Quote :

"which you think is perfectly fair, correct?"

Nope. I also keep saying the system isn't perfect...but its there for a reason.

We like to argue specific cases on these boards, but don't like to take a look at the picture as a whole. I promise you that if you tried to come up with a better system, it would have more things wrong with it than the current one. Do we need some changes? Sure. And some are being made. But it's a slow process. If you think its bad now, you should see the archaic laws that still held precedent just 20/30 years ago (although I'm in South Carolina...and we had some backwards shit going on back in the day).

1/30/2012 6:25:08 PM

That Texas ponzi scheme dude (Stanford?) he had 5 kids by I think 5 different woman, one he was paying $100,000 a month in child support. He is broke now so she is SOL...he also bought her a home in Florida...bet yah she hated it when it all dried up.

1/30/2012 6:28:36 PM

^^^The system is broken for sure.

But I'm arguing that a lot of men can take care of their business before it even gets to court.

Furthermore, there is a whole lot of history that needs to be acknowledged here, and it would help people's arguments, if they could at least show that they understand why the law is written the way it is...instead of acting like crazy baby mamas just popped out of thin air.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 6:31 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 6:30:58 PM

Quote :

" Furthermore, there is a whole lot of history that needs to be acknowledged here, and it would help people's arguments, if they could at least show that they understand why the law is written the way it is...instead of acting like crazy baby mamas just popped out of thin air."

This.

When divorces started happening frequently, women were the primary caretakers and husbands worked all day to financially support the family. So when families broke apart, the courts reflected that. Mother keeps custody, father continues his financial support. Even to this day, courts don't like to "disrupt" the life of the child, so they keep things consistent. If the mom did most of the caring and raising, they will more than likely get custody. Coming from experience, it is interesting (although depressing) to see the modern day divorces where both parents worked and raised their kid equally. You are seeing a lot more 50/50 custody decisions...although it usually still takes a bit more effort on the father's side. At the same time, I've seen plenty of fathers give up primary custody pretty easy to go for the "every other weekend" route just to get more freedom.

1/30/2012 6:36:39 PM

Quote :

"I'd probably have to get several DNA tests to prove paternity. But I'd eventually come after you with all the spite/greed/vengeance of every whore in the world combined. Also, I'd purposefully do a horrible job of raising our kid. When we reconcile and get married, we can visit him or her in prison."

LOL!!!! That is absolutely hilarious!!

1/30/2012 6:38:10 PM