Jane's Posts

Aug 16 1998

I have read in several state publications that the main interest in assessing Child Support, or deciding increases, is to ensure that the standard of living for this child remains the same as it was before the marriage...okay....

I don't think this exactly right. This is my understanding of it: the children's standard of living is not supposed to be harmed by the divorce. If you stayed married, your children's standard of living would improve with your increase in income. Lots of times people have kids while they are still in school or entry level jobs. By having sex or signing adoption papers, you commit yourself to providing for your children to the best of your ability.

Our society wants children to be raised in stable families. Divorce is permissible, but not encouraged. The court's major concern is that the children you already have do not suffer because of the divorce. When people go on to subsequent marriages, the original children are not supposed to be harmed by that choice, either. You are not supposed to have more children if you can't keep your commitment to the ones you already have.

jane

Aug 18 1998

Now, if me and the ex are divorced, which we are now, it was her decision to divorce, why should, if I get a better paying job after the divorce, my support payments be increased? Think about it. Why?
Wildman

Good God, Wildman, why wouldn't you??? I just don't understand this way of thinking. Most parents work their asses off so they *can* provide for thier children. You work your ass off and resent having to share it with them.
lil

I will admit, we hated that the fruits of my husband's labor were being enjoyed by his lazy, cruel ex-wife. But as long as his sons were living in her house, it was the only way he could provide for them in the way he wanted to.

Oh, well. I have even read people here say that they would be satisfied having their kids live in welfare projects if that's all their CP Mom can afford, before they would send her a penny!
SSM

What kills me is the idea of using the poverty level as a guideline. I just can't imagine a parent thinking that his/her responsibility to the people they brought into the world was discharged as long as they weren't in dire poverty. In the U.S. the poverty level is pretty damned low.

jane

Aug 19 1998

[poverty level as a guideline]

Where would you put it?

Children deserve to be supported to the best of their parents' ability. They do not need their every whim indulged.

Would you have the child in poverty, the NCP in poverty, or make it so that they have an equal standard of living?

If it were a choice between the two, obviously the adult would have to make the greater sacrifice. The parent is responsible for bringing the child into the world.

How do you bring up the childs SoL without bringing up the CP's SoL?

To some extent, the CP's SOL will increase with the child's.

How is CS payment NOT a form of involuntary servitude?

Obviously it was a voluntary choice at one point. Otherwise, there would be no child. This is the consequence of your decision to have sex. Your feelings for the other parent, blood alcohol level at the time of conception, desire to abort the fetus, etc., don't alter the initial commitment.

I have a basic bias for the person who does the producing. If you destroy their incentive to produce the goods, they quit and everyone suffers. Non-producers, even children, do not ALWAYS come before the producers in any society with thought out moral values.

For most people I know, providing for their children is their major incentive for producing goods.

The "moral values" of this society do not support equation of the value of a child's life with his/her ability to produce goods. If you need an economic analysis, consider CS capital investment. Your children will be a part of our society for the rest of their lives. You brought them here. You make sure they grow up to be an asset to that society. Otherwise, the rest of us will all pay later for their lack of education, health care, nutrition, counseling, etc. as children.

How would you compare your moral stand WRT Child support with existing government laws regarding late term abortions?

I don't see the connection.

It's a hypothetical question, because morally speaking, the laws in the U.S. are a hodge podge of conflicting moral stands that seem to have arosed because of special interest. There's no guiding principle behind any of it.

I believe the guiding principle in this area is "the best interests of the child."

How is your statement not a self serving "pay me more" argument?

Nothing in my post could possibly have given you that impression. I said nothing about paying or being paid any CS. I have no problems with CS.

I get tired of these endless, bitter post about lack of child support and the CP's poverty.

I am pretty sick of these alt.child-support cross posts myself. I am so sick of people whining about accepting their financial responsibility to their children. I can't believe adults spend so much time trying to punish their exes through their children. I pity the children who have petty, vindictive, selfish, money grubbing parents and step-parents.

I have worked very hard to get a BS Physics and even harder to get a BSEE.

I certainly hope the BSEE is in Electrical Engineering not Elementary Education. There is no English word "arosed." I believe you meant "arisen."

I supported myself all the way. I am the CP and I don't get a DIME in child support from anybody. My ex get's the child support for my step daughter from her 1st ex. (I have custody of my step).

So get a lawyer. Send your step back to her BPs. Don't blame it on me.

If you can't support your kids on your own, explain the moral justification you used in bringing them into this world.

I pretty much feel the same way. If you are not willing to support your children, explain the moral justification YOU used when bringing them into this world. Besides, who said I had any children that I wasn't supporting on my own?

jane