So I was reading this article and it says:

Quote :

" For 13 years David Zearl Martin eluded Texas investigators and racked up more than $420,000 in child support debt. http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2011-01-25/fbi-finds-fugitive-dad-jordan#.Tybd7_lXkwU "

First: I don't understand why it takes it takes $420,000 to support 2 children for 13 years.

Second: If the children were supported by something else for 13 years and they're doing just fine, then the child support was proven to be unnecessary.

This leads to one conclusion: Child support is awarded based on income and not awarded based on the actual amount it takes to keep a child in good health for 18 years.


Why doesn't anyone care about men and their lives? If seen far too many good men paying 2/3rds of their paycheck to child support, while the women 1) have better jobs than he 2) have better homes than he and 3) spend the child support money on themselves.

It seems that women are just as guilty as men when creating a child.

It makes no sense for a women to get $420,000 for free when she doesn't do any work, while another woman who sleeps with a poor man gets nothing.

A poor man should pay as much as a rich man and a rich man should pay as much as a poor man because all kids require the same minimum dollar amount (cost of diapers, food, shelter, and health care). If the man can't pay that minimum, nominal, fair and just amount, then the state should take over with welfare. The woman should collect receipts of everything she needs reimbursed and hand them to the court. The court should look over them and decide whether the items were "needs" or "wants". The man should be responsible to repaying that amount, plus a small fee for the court's time. Even with the fee, the price to support a child will be waaaay less than its current method of awarding based on income (regardless of the mother's income).


I bet more men will be able to meet their obligations and be happy about it.

This is about the kids being supported, right?


PS What pisses me off the most is that they lock up men who don't pay child support. How can they support a kid behind bars? How does that help support the children in any way,shape, or form?

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 1:55 PM. Reason : proofreading]

1/30/2012 1:52:50 PM

I think that it is estimated to cast $18,000/yr to raise a child (but I think that was taken from upper middle class statsbc my parents spent 1/18 of that)

1/30/2012 1:55:37 PM

Child support is a tax for people too cool for condoms and too stupid for abortion. I have no problem with the current structure.

1/30/2012 1:55:55 PM

Quote :

"Child support is a tax for people too cool for condoms and too stupid for abortion. I have no problem with the current structure."

until it happens to you, am I right?


Scenerio: You meet a girl. You marry a girl. You have kid with girl. You get divorced a year later.

You have no problem with the current structure because it's a tax for people too cool for condoms and too stupid for abortion.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 1:58:20 PM

so.... you don't think raising kids is a job worthy of compensation ?

1/30/2012 1:58:20 PM

Quote :

"It makes no sense for a women to get $420,000 for free when she doesn't do any work"

Yes, because feeding, clothing, housing, and taking care of a child for 13 years isn't work. Those things just happen automatically.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 1:58:29 PM

It's a decent system that does a pretty good job of preventing deadbeat dads.

And the courts/DSS do their best to work with men who have trouble paying their child support. They don't throw you in jail unless absolutely refuse to pay or have no job. They have payment plans.

And I agree that it can be a little high...however....

Quote :

"Why doesn't anyone care about men and their lives?"

That's stupid. What about the women who have to do a majority of the raising??

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 1:59:18 PM

I slipped one past the goalie a few years back. We both agreed to flush it out. No 24 year old is ready to be a father, imho.

1/30/2012 1:59:40 PM

Quote :

"Yes, because feeding, clothing, housing, and taking care of a child for 12 years isn't work. Those things just happen automatically."

Not $420,000 worth of work.

1/30/2012 2:01:33 PM

Quote :

"Not $420,000 worth of work."

It's entirely possible they would have spent that much on a kid in that period of time. Private school tuition, camps, a car, etc. You can hit that pretty easy.

1/30/2012 2:03:16 PM

Quote :

"I slipped one past the goalie a few years back. We both agreed to flush it out. No 24 year old is ready to be a father, imho."

That's funny, because not every person has a woman who agrees to flush it out. Irregardless of the father's wishes. This could have EASILY been you.

Quote :

"It's entirely possible they would have spent that much on a kid in that period of time. Private school tuition, camps, a car, etc. You can hit that pretty easy."

Needs and wants are two different things. Private school is a want, not a need. Public education is available for free. Camps are a want, a child can live without a camp. A car is a want, a child can live without a car.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:04 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 2:03:20 PM

Quote :

"Not $420,000 worth of work."

I doubt you could find a 24 hour nanny that didn't expect that much payment for 13 years of work. That's not even including the clothes, food, healthcare, schooling, housing, car seats, etc. on top of that.

You do realize that $420,000 over the course of 13 years is $32,307.70, right? I'd like to find a live-in nanny for that amount.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:05 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 2:03:37 PM

doesn't it cost like $300 per week per child for daycare around here??

so that's 15600 per year per kid right there... not to mention dinner school cloths school supplies etc.


[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 2:04:47 PM

Quote :

"That's funny, because not every person has a woman who agrees to flush it out. Irregardless of the father's wishes. This could have EASILY been you."

*regardless

1/30/2012 2:06:13 PM

how much money did he spend fleeing these charges?

I know for a fact that as long as you make some payment (not necessarily the full amount) they leave you alone, seems like a lot of wasted energy so he could ditch his responsibility. But Idk him or the family

1/30/2012 2:06:25 PM

yeah... without without regard...


seriously though i had a friend who was a live-in nanny while in college... i think she made ~ 48k

1/30/2012 2:07:25 PM

That $420k figure was for TWO kids.

Quote :

"Martin operated a chiropractic clinic until he and his wife divorced in 1991, according to the Attorney General's Office. A judge ordered him to pay $3,500 per month in child support, but he failed to pay any, the office said. In 1997, Martin failed to show for court when a Carson County judge found Martin owed more than $150,000 in unpaid child support. A judge reduced the monthly payment to $1,500 and ordered Martin to make a one-time payment of $1,000, which he failed to do, Rolfe said. Martin had not been seen since, she added."

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:08 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 2:07:31 PM

Quote :

"Needs and wants are two different things. Private school is a want, not a need. Public education is available for free. Camps are a want, a child can live without a camp. A car is a want, a child can live without a car."

But this is what it's like...


If the divorce hadn't happened, and the parents had stayed together, then their income together would have given the kid A CHOICE of private or public school. Now that the parents are no longer together, the kid doesn't have that choice? That doesn't seem right. The courts do their best for the "best interests of the child." They make the dad financially responsible to give that kid the best possible opportunities...the same opportunities the kid would have if the parents were still together.

That's what you're missing. You are being selfish...the courts make up for your selfishness.

1/30/2012 2:09:15 PM

Quote :

"doesn't it cost like $300 per week per child for daycare around here??"

Yes, but that only lasts for 2 years before children go to public school, which happens to act as a babysitter for enough hours to go to work.

Also, family is free.
Also, friends will help out in time of need.
Also, if you have no family, you find friends with kids. You babysit their kids, they babysit your kids. Free.

Poverty can't exist in the america if everyone had the kind of money you guys are throwing around.

1/30/2012 2:09:20 PM

Public education is hardly free. School supplies, clothing/uniforms, the cost of extracurriculars like band instruments or sports equipment/training and jerseys. Even if private school is taken out of the picture, public education costs are still significant.

Quote :

"Also, if you have no family, you find friends with kids. You babysit their kids, they babysit your kids. Free."

When are you supposed to be babysitting all these extra kids if you're out working to support your family?

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 2:10:34 PM

^^^yes he did

using the average annual cost of a child ($18,000) x 2 kids x 13 yearss = HOLY SHIT BATMAN, a trip around the world costs less than that!! to the batmobile.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 2:10:40 PM

I'm pretty sure it's based of the father's income too. but i'm not positive on that.

1/30/2012 2:11:27 PM

^It's based on a combination of both incomes, then they are split proportionately, and based on who has primary custody and the majority of the responsibilities.

1/30/2012 2:12:43 PM

Quote :

"When are you supposed to be babysitting all these extra kids if you're out working to support your family?"

He's got a nursery at the pizza shop. It's right next to the 700 degree oven.

This mother fucker blames every single thing on the system.

1/30/2012 2:12:46 PM

... and all these motherfuckin' snakes

1/30/2012 2:13:40 PM

Quote :

"If the divorce hadn't happened, and the parents had stayed together, then their income together would have given the kid A CHOICE of private or public school. Now that the parents are no longer together, the kid doesn't have that choice? That doesn't seem right. The courts do their best for the "best interests of the child." They make the dad financially responsible to give that kid the best possible opportunities...the same opportunities the kid would have if the parents were still together. "

Argument is invalid. Children of rich parents don't deserve to have any more options than children of poor parents.

1/30/2012 2:15:09 PM

thread invalid unless you have kids and are divorced.

1/30/2012 2:16:02 PM

Then shouldn't we take away the right to private education for all kids then? If none of them deserve it? And I guess no private music lessons, or cool school trips like to space camp, because the poor kids can't do that.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 2:16:23 PM

the thing that bothers me more than anything is the weighted bias towards mothers having custody.

i have a friend who has a kid and even though the mother has been tossed in the loony bin 3 times for public disturbances destruction of public an private property, the crazy bitch still sues for custody when she gets out and usually gets it.

1/30/2012 2:17:00 PM

^Now that, I agree with. I have seen children given to the mother's family in lieu of the father, and I think that's wrong.

1/30/2012 2:17:46 PM

Yeah alimony and child support are both kinda fucked up at times. As others have said there is a big difference between needs and wants. While I agree it should be somewhat based upon income I think many of us had parents raising mulitple kids on less than 30k a year. So based upon that I think for one kid any more than 15k a year is overkill when you consider it money for needs and not wants.

1/30/2012 2:18:36 PM

Quote :

"When are you supposed to be babysitting all these extra kids if you're out working to support your family?"

All these extra kids is an exaggeration for 1 extra kid? How do teachers manage a classroom of 19 kids?! The same way a parent can take care of 19 kids at one time.

Of course, the actual average number of kids you'd have to watch is 2-4.


You work when the other person watches the kids.
They work when you watch the kids.

Is your mind blown?

1/30/2012 2:20:05 PM

^^^^the reason is because we keep allowing judges to remain until they die.

My friend was trying to have custody from her mom be given to her grandparents, because her mom was insane and had issues. The custody judge absolutely refused to take custody from the natural mother, and in many cases the mom has maternal instincts, giving the judge piece of mind. However, it is definitely not always the case.

it is the judges decision, so you should actually vote for the ones you like next election.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 2:20:18 PM

if you don't want to give your kid some wants even though you should be able to afford them if you weren't a selfish douche... well then i think you're an asshole.

Now... i also think the kids should be able to testify if the mother is rocking some jimmy choo's and the kids can't eat... that shit should be stopped too.

1/30/2012 2:21:53 PM

Quote :

"thread invalid unless you have kids and are divorced."

What about kid from divorced parents and an attorney who practices family law??


Overall...I think the Child Support system is pretty good. As someone has already mentioned, it can weight a little heavy on who has primary custody...but sometimes that is important, because there are a lot of father's who have no contact with the kids, so the custody is a good determination. I do have some problems with how the system determines and awards custody. But I don't have a compete overhaul solution, so I play by the rules.

Quote :

"Now... i also think the kids should be able to testify if the mother is rocking some jimmy choo's and the kids can't eat... that shit should be stopped too."

I think they need to give more power to the guardian ad litems to be able to report details like this.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 2:23:07 PM

Quote :

"Of course, the actual average number of kids you'd have to watch is 2-4. You work when the other person watches the kids. They work when you watch the kids."

No, I'm simply asking you how 2 people can work full time jobs, and also watch these 2-4 children. Does one have to work night shifts, and the other day shifts? In your scenario, one can't have a steady, full time job, and still watch another person's kids while they work a steady, full time job. Unless your picking up odd shifts in retail or food service to make your 40+ hours.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:25 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2012 2:24:28 PM

I am grateful I don't have to go through this. I do think whoever has sole custody should be getting enough help to feed, cloth, shelter, go to school, and go to the doctor. All of that stuff combined gets expensive.

What my understanding with my little brother (my dad pays my mom) and when my sister did have custody is that it was based on monthly income.

Quote :

"the thing that bothers me more than anything is the weighted bias towards mothers having custody."

I do know that in my sister's case that is not true at all. The mother-fucker won't even let her see her kid and not to mention any of the rest of us. I haven't seen my niece in 3 fucking years because of the way things are set up. He has ways of weaseling out of shit and it makes me nothing but livid. People do make mistakes but when they are getting their shit together the system should look at that no matter the gender.

1/30/2012 2:30:23 PM

Ultimately there should always be some sort of shared custody even if the other person is fucking crazy there should be supervised visits or something.

The situation i'm talking about is crazy mom wants full custody every time she gets out of psychiatric care for criminal charges.

1/30/2012 2:34:22 PM

Quote :

"People do make mistakes but when they are getting their shit together the system should look at that no matter the gender"

This is a tough one. Because you would have some parents that would petition the court every day for changes they've made in their life. When in reality, 90% of the time the person really doesn't change and it's correct to keep with the court's ruling.

It sucks, but the other 10% just have to man up and pay a good attorney a lot of money and cross their fingers that the court agrees with them.

1/30/2012 2:34:56 PM

Quote :

"No, I'm simply asking you how 2 people can work full time jobs, and also watch these 2-4 children. Does one have to work night shifts, and the other day shifts? In your scenario, one can't have a steady, full time job, and still watch another person's kids while they work a steady, full time job. Unless your picking up odd shifts in retail or food service to make your 40+ hours."

What's the difference between:

A) two single parents with one child each working together

and

B) one couple working together with two children?

1/30/2012 2:35:34 PM

what are you worried about... you can make half your personal expenses business expenses and not pay a damned thing.

1/30/2012 2:36:48 PM

I dont believe in paying child support, or being involved in my children's lives in any way. If my kids turn out badly, I dont want people pointing fingers at me saying "its the parent's fault". I'd much rather not be involved. I dont even send them birthday cards.

1/30/2012 2:36:58 PM

What also sucks is most people can't do this:

Quote :

"a good attorney a lot of money and cross their fingers that the court agrees with them."

I think the system is way messed up and there are too many messed up people with kids that it seems to blanket everyone.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM. Reason : subtract from EMCE. replace with ]

1/30/2012 2:37:59 PM

I feel like the appropriate thread title should have been

"I have some child support opinions."


^ I agree.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 2:38:49 PM

Kids are fucking expensive. I'd rather have a ferrari.

1/30/2012 2:41:25 PM

Quote :

"I have some child support opinions.""

+1

1/30/2012 2:42:03 PM

For once, I at least partially agree with GeniuSxBoY.

The legal system treats unmarried men as little more than ATMs for their children's mothers to draw from. It's a system that encourages women to follow their natural desires to have children without going through the motions of setting up a proper environment in which to raise the child. It demands money based on the father's income, yet it gives the father little to no control over how that money is spent.

Quote :

"I doubt you could find a 24 hour nanny that didn't expect that much payment for 13 years of work."

Anyone who sees their own children as a job that they should be paid for doesn't deserve to have them in the first place.

Quote :

"You do realize that $420,000 over the course of 13 years is $32,307.70, right? I'd like to find a live-in nanny for that amount."

Averaging $32,307/year over a period of 13 years on a healthy child is a ridiculous amount of money. And is it so wrong to assume that the woman should provide some of the child's costs? Assuming the costs were split evenly that would imply that they are spending $64,614 per year on the child. In either case we're talking about new jet skis every year, tons of toys, and an Escalade for the kid's 16th birthday.

I support the right of men to "opt out" of being a parent at the early stages of the pregnancy or at the time he is notified. Women have full control of their bodies and full control of the pregnancy. The act of sleeping with a woman should not enter a man into a 19 year contract to pay for a child.

Just because you take a test drive shouldn't mean you have to buy the car.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:46 PM. Reason : s]

1/30/2012 2:43:04 PM

Quote :

"if you don't want to give your kid some wants even though you should be able to afford them if you weren't a selfish douche... well then i think you're an asshole."

I completely agree with this. I just think as far as a court order is concerned of what money you have to pay by law that should simply cover the needs of a kid. I would hope most parents would give more if they can for things like wants.

If your kid doesnt goto private school or have new clothes or a new car you aren't gonna be put in jail as a parent. Court awarded child support should cover what amount would be necessary for your kid to live. Even if you make good money, if you arent divorced and only give your child the bare minimum, you aren't going to goto jail. You will win worst parent of the year awards and be a huge douche but when it comes to court ordered settlements of money you have to pay or goto jail it should be simply what is necessary for the child to live basically.

1/30/2012 2:43:32 PM

there should be a measure in place to account for gold digging women

... and welcome back to real life

1/30/2012 2:45:12 PM

^^^agree

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:45 PM. Reason : -]

1/30/2012 2:45:14 PM