You ethered both Jimi and Marc, Melissa. I heard the debate from all 3 of you and i have to say you were the most convincing.
This material has really caught my interest-and I must get back to work, LOL!
My father was not "in the home" but made his very best effor to be "in our lives". My mother never bad-mouthed him and it had a major effect on our feelings towards him. I know that my dad failed to make any payments some months-but I loved him always. My mother passed away 9 years ago and my father was there to comfort us. Even greater, he continues to be a very influential part of his grandchildren's life. After reading the numerous blogs I have truly enlightned on a lot of issues. However, I must conclude that if my father had become apart of the "system" due to his inability to meet payments; we would have lost much more than another pair of tennis shoes. The bond of love is priceless.
Melissa, you made the perfect argument against the role of financial support by an absentee parent. "I believe that the interests of children are best served by establishing loving bonds with both parents. Assuming there is no abuse, our kids do best when they are allowed to love both parents unconditionally, no matter the failures and weaknesses of those parents. These bonds are nurtured through time, visits, phone calls, letters and even emails. It is the absent parent’s responsibility to initiate these encounters. It is the custodial parent’s responsibility to facilitate them." Money was nowhere on this list.
Unless the mother is destitute, what difference does it make if the parent has a few extra dollars in her pocket? If you made half the salaray you make now, could I then say that you are not a good parent and are not adequately providing for your child? I did not know a price tag could be placed on love, care, right-ruling, and time spent with a child.
Missy, I hate to blow up your spot, but I'm sure you'll forgive me. Your argument is leaking oil.
It's a fact: women can forgive an arrearage and start a support cycle new. They can also reset the amount of support to an agreed upon amount.
So.
Since your ex-husband can only pay half the obligation, why doesn't make more sense to lower the obligation to an amount he can pay as opposed to making him incur debt month after month?
I'll tell you why.
Because it's more fun to hold your ex-husband by the balls and have a semi-legitimate reason to badmouth him. What good is paying an arrearage, when all those bills have come and gone? For baby-mamas, it's like winning the penny lottery. Just admit I'm right, so we can all go home.
Jimi - Melissia didn't say her husband "coundn't" pay the full support each month. She said he "didn't". When support is established the courts base it on the father's ability to pay as well as the needs of the child (ren). Men think of child support as ex-wife (or ex-girlfrind) support and can;t stand the thought of "giving money to that bi*&h". Men can so easily walk away from their children and never give a second thought to how they are eating, living, dressing, etc. Outta site, outta mind. Most of the men who don'tt pay support also don't spend time with their children. If they did, they would know that it takes MONEY to raise them!
Hostile, much, Jimi? Going for the crackpot award? Try to think less simplistically.
Sorry if sound reasoning sounds hostile, ladies. Mine is not an objective opinion either. In any event co-parenting shouldn't be a "boys against the girls" proposition. But I confess, it's interesting for the women here to pretend to know what men think.
Hilarious.
I don't pretend to know the motivation of women who insist on putting men in jail or airing them out about back support. But I can plainly see the net outcome. It's just a control device, in the end. and everyone here knows that.
As someone who pays support, with colleagues who pay support, I can say that most men don't see a reasonable amount of money as "woman support." Most men want thier kids to be well taken care of. I think it's reasonable to expect the mother of your child to work, even if only to be a role model for the kid--the portrait of women laying back on support checks is not a pretty one. And I don't think it is the media one either, for the record. However, some of us are dealing with that scenario.
On paper, the courts base the amount of support on gross income, if I recall. And like most things--like laws that are supposed to insure fairness in custody dealings--it all looks good on paper. But often, the amount hang the dad out to dry, without considering his bills, and his life. And the courts don't want to award custody to fathers, who sometime may be the better parent.
So, it makes me a crackpot to suggest that a man and woman can come together and agree on an amount that both parties think is fair? That women should forgive arrearage? What kind of message does putting a father in jail send to a child? What makes more sense?
C'mon. Reason much?
Jimi,
You have lost the plot. You clearly have a "beef" with women and should simply leave them alone. I feel for you, in the same way I feel for your exes and children. It must be miserable in Jimi Izrael world. You seem incapable of nuanced thought, of admitting that your'e not always right, and of shedding the mantle of maligned black man. I think you owe Melissa an apology. And probably your exes and children, too. To call black women babymama is really a disgusting insult. It plays into white supremacist notions of black female sexuality and is incredibly ugly. I think you have some deep-seated hatred of women, especially sisters, and need to work it out. You need an older man to sit you down and give you an earful about the world and about what it means to be a responsible man. This is something the "Hip-Hop" generation was never taught. It's not about sexing women, making babies, resenting babies and mother of your babies, holding your nuts, talking smack, and being a rude pig.
I had to comment on this one. I am the wife of a man who has consistently paid his support to his children from a previous relationship. The one area that I think needs to change is that non-custodial parents get no tax benefit for paying their share. His income is lowered significantly enough that he must work two jobs to be able to pay for his support and still contribute to our one-child household. I must make up the difference from my own income, and we barely make it by living very frugally. Now that the children will be going to college, he will not receive any tax benefit from paying for higher education, we will pay half. The sacrifices made affect our own family's ability to pay our bills though we are both college educated and have middle management jobs. He works a second job, while his high-school educated ex works one, she drives luxury vehicles, takes lavish vacations, and has spoiled the children by constantly eating out at restaurants that we can't afford. The saddest part of this is that the youngest child wanted to live with us, fought with his mother over it, and then later heard him tell her boyfriend that she would never let him do so because she'd lose that check. What a terrible thing for a parent to do, and what a terrible thing for a child to have to hear.
Sweets, that's awful. He should be able to claim the child on his taxes....but, of course, the mother has to sign off on that. There's a separate tax document that she has to sign and everything. Some will, most won't. Two jobs? Wow. That sounds like one of the worst scenarios I've heard lately.
Growth, while I'm grateful for the analysis, I suspect--and it's only a suspicion---that you don't know much about relationships between men and women--not that there's anything wrong with that--and have another agenda entirely. But I'll give your advise it's due. And thanks for reading.
If your attack on Melissa wasn't hostile, I don't know what was. You may have a sliver of a point -- I don't read your column so I don't know -- that SOME women use child support as a means of control or punishment, but your nasty little digs negate it. She was trying to be reasonable. You responded like a jerk. Of course there are horror stories -- but you refuse to acknowledge that they exist on both sides. That some men are able to pay, but simply unwilling to do so, and that the children suffer. You can say what you want, but this too is true. I know how my father lived and I know how we did. My mother never forced the issue. He went on vacation. My mother worked like a dog. We heated water on the stove because the hot water heater broke when I was six and we could fix it. Then the heat. Then the car. Etc. We all have our personal stories --that doesn't make them universally true. Grow up, Jimi.
As a former court clerk in the support unit I have seen abuse on both sides of the table. But, in my view the women are disgusting and for lack of a better term whores. Especially when you come to court with 6 baby daddies for 5 kids. I can tell more than a 1/3 of the cases are like this. It is a career for some of them. The men are no better they can have as many as 5 baby mommas with 7 or 8 kids. They are usually ex-cons just hustling if you know what I mean with no income. To put them in jail is alright by them. I had one felon, because that is what he is, show up with a tooth brush and tell the judge he knew it cost the state 50K to put him in jail so as he said "he's readded togo cause that bytchand her *** are going on the street."
In our court the parties are seperated from each other because make no mistake about it, 85% of the petitioners are there for revenge or to make a living (after the first 2kof support it becomes ridiculous). I think after 50%daycare cost and a standard 15% of your net salary the custodial parent should not get one red cent. I am a single parent with 2 kids I survive with no support. Why? I live as if the children's father is dead. As someone mentioned the support is for the children, not for me. One has to pay rent wether the children live there or not.
P.S.
Don't let me start with the rich folk which are the majority of the cases for enforcement. The court is located in an affluent county in NY STATE.
As a man who pays child support for his oldest child and is now married w/ addt'l children, I agree w/ most of what you have expressed. Family court may not be stacked against men as much as it is stacked against the non-custodial parent. There are several scenarios that I have encountered that are downright insane. Examples include:
1. For the last 2 yrs, my daughter has spent the month of august at my home. She is 13 so we put her in a camp at the Y. The camp costs $250/wk. Its great and she enjoys it. While she is spending the month of August w/ me, my child support payments to her mother do not cease. 2. Anything extra that I do for my daughter, i.e. a wardrobe at my home, cell phone, etc is just considered "gifts".
Even though the money i pay in support is much more than the financial obligation apportioned to her mom, I can't claim her on my taxes- ever.
You are right- fam court is not equipped to deal w/ all the nuances and difficulties that arise when co-parenting in two different households. However, the situations i describe above serve to create a disincentive for men to maintain close relationships w/ the children outside of their homes.
Wow! Child support is a very touchy subject. First, let me say that Melissa you have much respect from me for holding you tongue for the sake of your daughter. That is a tough thing to do.
On the other side of the child support issue, what happens when a dad has an increase in income? Is the mother allowed to go to court for augmented payments? If, yes, is the answer to the question, then it is completely reasonable that the payments would decrease along with reduced income. Is that reasonable or not?
The harshness of the penalties is in the control of the father to a point. First, if he does not have marketable skills then he should seriously consider not having children until he has the ability to provide adequate time and money to his child. Second, for those fathers that already have children, they should do everything in their power to work as many jobs a necessary to provide financial assistance to his child. Third, what is absolutely critical is for the father to document/verify his efforts and payment to the courts. Finally, if the courts have the interest of the child in mind, it will work with the father and mother to insure that that a responsible father is not jailed, which results in no quality time with the child or income for support payments!
Now, the phrase “baby mama drama” is a major part of the problem, in my opinion. It indicates that there is some crazy woman out there that for some strange reason is the mother of a man’s child. If she is just plane nuts then what does that make the father? After all, he reproduced with the person that he describes as a little “off.” The correct phrase to use is the “mother of my child/children.” If you disagree, do keep this mind, she will be the major influence on the child. What greater sentiment can you give to your child than to respect the person that carried, gave birth and takes care of him/her?!
I just had to add a comment as the 2nd "babymama". I have a child with a man who is a great father and loving companion- we are not married, He has a son from a previous relationship and that woman who birthed his son filed paper work with the courts on the exact day that my daughter was born. WHen he went to court about the issues he had no lawyer and she did, guess who came out with fat check, even though she made more than him and he had kept his child in custody for the first two years of his life. When the mother took him to court he said to her * in front of the judge, mind you* "Did you do this [child support] out of anger?" Her response- YES!Something is seriously wrong with the court system- who punishes and judges without ears and eyes open, black men are in some cases really getting punished. I really don't see how going to jail is going to help them pay the support either. Definitely time for reform.
Individuals who blame one side here (deadbeat dad or greedy mom) often have a personal axe to grind and, thus, view the issue through their own biased lens. It's not simply a case of either side being right or wrong in the absolute. The "bias" of the system depends a great deal on which state we are talking about because there is a hell of a difference between what courts do in the affluent suburbs of NYC and what they do in South Central Los Angeles. It also depends upon what social class we are talking about because child support issues between affluent couples are very different than those between working poor parents.
Men who pay support like they are supposed to but resent it really do underestimate the amount of men out there who refuse to pay anything when they clearly can afford to do so. It's an amazingly high percentage and it's often driven by spite. I wouldn't be surprise to find that there are more men out there who aren't paying than there are men who pay as the court has directed them. I work for a juvenile court in a major metropolitan area and the vast majority of kids I come in contact with fall into one of two categories (1) single mothers where the father refuses to participate or his whereabouts are unknown and (2) minority families where both parents are working long hours just to put food on the table. In both cases, the child lacks both the necessaries of life and the emotional support needed to grow up healthy and strong. So, to those righteous men out there who don't want to pay, I say this: you are really hurting your kids and risking their futures. Plus, if you don't pay, the rest of us end up paying.
If you truly are one of the men who are "paying too much", you need a new lawyer or you need therapy to help you realize it's your kid too. The courts do have discretion in setting amount, but most states have a formula which is used to set the amount and it's used for a reason. The statistics on the standard of living of men post-divorce and women-post divorce support the amounts given in child support awards. It's not about enriching the woman and punishing the man, it's about ensuring a minimum standard of life. Another poster remarked that she worked for a court where women acted like whores in the matter. I've worked with people from all over the US who advocate for children and I have to tell you, that's not the norm. Far more often it's that neither parent cares or neither parent can really afford to take care of the child at the basic level all children deserve.
On the other hand, as a woman married to a man with a child from his first marriage, I find it absolutely appalling that his ex wife could come after me for the child support payments but her new husband's income doesn't count at all toward what gets paid for my stepson. (I live in a community property state that holds spouse's liable for such "premarital" debt). I can't tell you how many times I've had to shell out for necessities such as clothing and shoes because the woman sent the kid to us for the summer with things that were two sizes too small. What we pay in child support per month is more than her entire mortgage payment, so it's not like she doesn't have the money to buy him clothes that actually fit. In the meantime, the girl she had from her second marriage is going to private school and her second husband hasn't had a regular job in 10 years, even though he's got a professional license as a CPA...Wonder where that money is going? To make matters worse, if my husband were to die, I'd have 0 rights of visitation with a child I've helped raise. (Actually, i've spent more time actively mothering the kid than his own mother has, but that's another story).
Noncustodial parents and the "second families" of those parents really do suffer under the current system. There is absolutely NO ACCOUNTING at all as to how the funds get spent. I would suspect that in the case of the affluent and professional classes, a significant chuck is not being used for the child.
None of this matters. Why? Because it isn't about me. It isn't about the husband's ex-wife. It's about the kid. We keep paying when we know not all the money is going to him because the alternative is far uglier: the child doesn't get what he needs and he ends up like those kids in Juvie. In the end, the amount we pay is enough to provide for his basics, even if only 10% of the total amount actually ends up going to provide for his needs. So we overpay because it's better than fighting over it. It's called being an adult and realizing that the child's needs are more important than our retention of the extra cash, even though the price of it is that we subsidize the ex-wife, her new husband, and their children.
Don't kid yourselves, there isn't a better alternative...at least not one we're able to put into practice.
In one of my classes in law school, we spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to "fix" the issue. There's no good solution. The non-custodial spouse must pay for the good of the child, but there should be some accounting as to how the funds are used. But how do you get the state to do that without invading people's lives in an egregious way? Do we really want more governmental interference in these matters? Do you really want some judge, or worse, some bureaucrat telling you that the money you spent on your daughter's birthday was excessive and unnecessary? The mommy wars and cultural wars in this country are bad enough without adding fuel to the fire.
In the end, the current system exists because we haven't been able to think up anything better.
And for all the Jimmi's out there who are angry, you should take some solace in the fact that the ratio of women to men with higher education degrees means that eventually it will be women who are paying the support to stay-at-home dads. I'm seeing this more and more. One of my good friends is a high-power lawyer. The dad stays home with the 4 kids. If they'd ever split up, she'd be paying spousal support for life and child support for the nest 10 years or so. So the day of "men" getting shafted will soon be at an end and it really be a custodial/noncustodial issue.
I think it's a shame that the courts have to intervene in matters of child support payments. There are just too many situations where parents are forced to do what they should do. I have been most fortunate when it came to the support of my daughter. Her father and I never married, but his father, who was living at the time, told me that his son would always take care of his child. We never went to court. My daughters' father provided without question or hestitation. When she needed diapers, he bought by the case. Tuition for private school, he paid in full in advance; allowing for a signifcant discount. Since he made more money than me, he allowed me to claim her as a dependent. He paid for her health coverage until she was 23 years old, since she was still a full time college student. She'll be 31 years old this June and has tremendously benefited from having both parents in her life, Our daughter will be receiving her Masters Degree this month, despite having a few lifetime set backs due to her sicckle cell disorder. She's gainfully employed and has her own home Because of how her father treats her, she doesn't just settle for any man in her life. She seems to choose men who mirror her father. How can I not love and respect this great man. Too many times, black men are not commended when they should. But, this man is a #1 DAD!!!
Awesome analysis, Melissa! Thank you for providing a thoughful, socioeconomic viewpoint on thsi touvhy subject. Thanks sooo much!
Jimi, please move to another country. All joking aside, try Cuba or Russia. A jail cell is awaiting you. Your bitterness and female bashing is so repulsive, that I do not think that you can be objective nor clear headed about this issue. It makes me wonder if you serve as a parent to your children at all--- and not just monetarily.
Women do not control child supprt amounts, arrearage, etc.; state law and courts do. Again, please reasearch your info....or just stop talking, writing, etc. The ignorance is not blissful.
Having recognized this problem of deadbeat parents/spouses and, further, that simply to jail errant child/spouse manintenance payors did not alleviate the financial plight of the child/spouse to whom such payments were erred, Trinidad and Tobago (T&T amended its laws several years ago; courts are now empowered to order that child/spouse maintenance dues be deducted by employers from the payor's wages/salary and sent to the court, whence the beneficiary would collect.
By and large, such a strategy has had its desired effect.
There still exist some niggling issues with payors who are self-employed and or unemployed. Suggestions have been made, repeatedly, that the stat pick up the slack in such cases; so far, nothing doing. And this, despite the fact that T&T is a wealthy country: national purse bulging to the extent that it cannot close.
The primary responsibility of the state is to ensure the well-being of all its citizens, regardless of their individual circumstance.That is recognized in the constitution of all free countries. In other words, to ensure that equity abounds in overseeing the distribution of the national wealth. States where males dominate decision-making have consistently failed so to do.
By the way, court-ordered child maintenance is colloquially referred to as "*** tax" in T&T. :-)
The word which the automatic censor has rendered as **** in my previous post is the four-letter word for a male adult fowl: http://gamesmuseum.uwaterloo.ca/Archives/Culin/Hawaii1899/graphics/cock3.jpg
lol
OOps! Admin! Please edit my last comment.
I think the URL I there included has skewed the comments box.
Thus, making posts unreadable.
My bad.
As a father (Degreed) and paying child support. I will keep my comments short and 2 the point. I have been in the system for 5 years. I pay my support in the right amount and on time. My frustration with the way things are set up is that you get no consideration for your financial support to your child. In addition to no tax advantage you are hit with the added expense of clothing, food, day car expense, etc when you have your child for visitation. The amount you pay monthly is based on your gross income not as it should be after taxes. The system is broke and needs to be fixed. This can be a win win for all concerned but it will not happen until both mothers and fathers realize we need to work together and not let the courts dictate what is right.
Ultracet.
