Please Help!!

[Bruno6301]

Hmmmm....

I never called the original poster a "bitch, etc"...that's not my way.. I understand it's frustrating to some 2nd wives, seeing their husband's paying child support amounts...but I suspect it's a lot more frustrating to the CHILD receiving only a check instead of having Daddy in the home. Sure, it's not the child who is in the marriage, BUT the child came from the marriage, and should not be penalized for it.

I am allllll for the 1st wife working, "IF" it applies. My husband does not whine and moan about his former wife not working because we know her situation, AND he knew when he married her, that she wanted to be a stay at home mom, AND she was not that educated, so she will not make "good money" like we do. These are things HE KNEW when he married her, laid beside her in the marital bed, and made children. Now, he is with me, and I am educated and I can earn the same amounts he can, and we have all we need. He knew when he married ME, that I was a career person, who wanted kids, BUT I wanted to continue working so that the children could all have more.

I understand my husband's former wife's situation, and we live with it, help her out, and help the kids. It's the kids that always suffer in the breakup of a marriage. Couples can move on, start over, etc...kids can't....they adapt until they grow up, and carry on memories, both good and bad.

You have to look at it in reverse....it's a must. How would you feel if your ex husband remarried, had more kids, and looked at you and said, "I need to lower the support, I have more children?" Have you thought about what the child will be told when your husband's former wife tells his son that "Daddy does not give you the same support because of his new child"....It will effect the child's opinion of Daddy....and may cause resentment between the siblings.

I am not judging you at all. I won't do that because I have had some serious issues with my kids, and some problems.....but we worked them out, decided to live as "adults" and let the children be the children...They have to have whatever the parents can afford....they cannot support themselves..and that is what we all know when we decide to have kids...they will need us forever..

It's more than money....but money is how we survive..it's how the kids survive. Please just let your husband pay the amount set...if the birth mother does not need the extra money, then ask your husband to ask her to put it into a savings account for his child's future needs, college, a car to get to a job, etc...think about the child...all the children...

Good luck to you....take care.

 

[jez51]

Re: pleae help

Yes..my little girl gets child support from her "donor" as I call him. He has never been interested in seeing her and has never contacted me to ask about her, so he is nothing but a check to me every month. My daughter does get support, but I dont want to use her money to pay our bills, that belings to her, I'd rather get a job than to spend money that I fought to get for her.

sharon_grounds
just a suggestion...i had to do this when i was at ft.leonard wood and had just had my second child. i ran an ad for child care, i did a mommy's day out kind of thing, because i didn't want to babysit 40hrs a week. i averaged about 3-4hrs day 2-3 days a week, it was for moms who didn't work, but needed a break once in awhile. i also did laundry for some of the single guys in the barracks. this added some badly needed income and kept us from starving, also gave my 3yr old some playmates. the trick is not to overload yourself, after all you have to have time for your own children and do your own laundry, lol, but its a good way to earn extra money while being a stay at home mom, especially if your stationed at a base that doesn't have a lot of jobs available...

 

[lovingdaddy2]

My husband calls his daughter every saturday (court Ordered) has seen her for a full 2 weeks Since mom left him to go back to Germany - she had the Affair - We have PROOF !!

You know, I wasn't going to get involved in this thread anymore until I read that statement.

Your hubby needs his ass kicked, his balls taken in for an overhaul and a good "Come to Jesus meeting".------MY HUSBAND SAID FOR YOU TO TAKE YOUR OPION AND SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DOES NOT SHINE - HE CARES ALOT FOR HIS DAUGHTER AT LEAST I AM NOT A DEAD BEAT DAD THAT DOES NOT PAY CHILD SUPPORT OR THAT DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE THING TO DO WITH HIS CHILD

HE PAID HER 500.00 A MONTH
HER MOTHER TRIED TO GET CUSTODY OF THE CHILD BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT TAKING CARE OF HER.

By the way, who gives a rat's ass if she had an affair? The courts would laugh you out of there.--

they only way we knew she was having the affiar is by is LES pays from the military where HER now JERK controlling FREek HUSBAND name is on them !!!!!!


My husband has spent well over 10,000 on this child of his NOT counting 13,000 in child support he has already payed just for visitation - and the MOTHER is a dead beat - She left us a message today and said "She is no longer going to allow the child to call him everyother sat " (this is a court order that they are to switch off every other week) Who care more about this child sure not mom !!!


I am outa this thread

 

[Boxcarbill]

BCB, first off the China thing. I do recognize the necessity of their population control measures. I never said that I disagreed with that. All I said was that unless we were willing to do something along those lines, there's not much we can do here. I doubt that the majority of the American public would stand for such reproductive controls. Personally, I agree with you about the overpopulation problem, but I don't see how that has much bearing on the topic at hand. If we were just talking about population control, I suspect that we would be mostly on the same side. However, this tangent is just clouding the issue.

As for the rest of it, I think you are deliberately being obtuse. As the cost of living increases, of course people are going to spend more money raising their children. However, people don't generally "raise ONE child's standard of living while letting the rest fall by the wayside". And if it's a choice between a larger house and better "material" things or being able to afford a second child, many people who want a second child will choose the second child. And no, material things are not necessarily negative, but "materialism" (which is the word I used) is.

Oh, and lest you form an opinion of me as someone who breeds indiscriminately, I waited until I finished my education, got firmly ensconced in my career, purchased my home, and achieved a level of financial security before I even considered planning a family. I also made sure that me and my SO were ready emotionally and that we shared the same goals and philosophies about family and finances. Soon, we will get married and then we will plan to have our one or two children, God willing.

Here's what I do. I quote the post that I'm responding to in my post. That way there can be no misunderstanding as to which post I'm responding. Sometimes I delete the quoted post down to one or two sentences when I'm only going to respond to a particular sentence. Now on to your complaint. The original poster's question has been asked and answered. In fact, it has been answered ad infinitum ad nauseam. Now there is no rule on this forum which says that collateral posts cannot be responded to. You were the one who took to the specific poster's situation (child support and income) to the general (what intact families do with increased family income) and I quoted your post . Therefore my post is to the general subject of what families do with increased income.

The China post and to what it refers is specifically limited by the first three introductory words in the paragraph.

This portion of your post: "However, people don't generally 'raise ONE child's standard of living while letting the rest fall by the wayside'" is a logical fallacy. This particular logical fallacy is known as the straw man argument. The straw man argument occurs when when one misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, then proceeds to knock down that misrepresented position and then concludes that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that has been made. In other words what you just did.

Your comment on "my forming an opinion" on "someone who breeds indiscriminately " is also a mischaracterization of my statement and is another strawman. I suggest that you go back and read what I wrote before seeking to mischaracterize my statements. What I said regarding there being "a direct correlation between educational level and number of children and family income or material things is not my opinion" neither expresses or implies anything regarding "indiscriminate" or "discriminate breeding." It is a correlation between education level and income levels and number of children which has nothing to do with "my opinion" but rather is a well established, well documented research based upon objective data. The results of that data neither expresses nor implies anything regarding "indiscriminate breeding." This is another straw man which you have created.

[Sidebar: What I have noticed repeatedly on Internet forums, and this forum is no exception, is the rampant lack of lack reading comprehension skills. Reading comprehension skills are definitely at an all time low. People can read the words but they don't comprehend the meaning in a passage. Hex, IAAL and some others are constantly correcting people's poor spelling and grammar skills but lack of reading comprehension is epidemic and forget logical reasoning skills. Spelling and grammar, one can run through spell check and/or grammar check but there is no substitution for reading comprehension or logical reasoning and these skills are woefully lacking in society today.]

 

[theother]

... So intelligent, responsible people do not just keep breeding every time they get an extra dollar...

"Your comment on "my forming an opinion" on "someone who breeds indiscriminately " is also a mischaracterization of my statement and is another strawman."

I just wanted to make it clear that I am an intelligent, responsible person that does not keep breeding everytime I get an extra dollar. I wanted to emphasize that I do not take my position because I wanted to "breed", as you put it.


*******************

"The original poster's question has been asked and answered. In fact, it has been answered ad infinitum ad nauseam. You were the one who took to the specific poster's situation (child support and income) to the general (what intact families do with increased family income) and I quoted your post . Therefore my post is to the general subject of what families do with increased income."

Yes, it has been answered. In fact, we both share the same view on the OP's situation. When I took the topic from the specific to the general, I simply stated an opinion that is basically the status quo in a lot of states. "Honestly, when there are subsequent children involved, I think they should be taken into account before a support order is raised" This quote is my basic assertion. It falls in line with the CS laws in many states where subsequent children cannot cause a decrease in CS, but will be taken into account if there is an attempt to upward modify. Since this is the law in many cases, I don't see what your problem is with my position. I honestly don't see why we are debating about this. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion as am I. I'll leave it at that.



BTW, I also agree with you about the unfortunate lack of reading comprehension skills on the internet. There seems to be about as much of that as there is respect for an opposing viewpoint, willingness to accept new ideas, empathy for other people, and ability to wage a debate without insulting someone's person. On the bright side, there does seem to be a wealth of arrogance and condescension. Apparently, those are things that will never be in short supply.

 

[Boxcarbill]

"Your comment on "my forming an opinion" on "someone who breeds indiscriminately " is also a mischaracterization of my statement and is another strawman."

I just wanted to make it clear that I am an intelligent, responsible person that does not keep breeding everytime I get an extra dollar. I wanted to emphasize that I do not take my position because I wanted to "breed", as you put it.



My response:

Look since you are intelligent, see if you can understand this. You were the one who took this position: "f you are taking care of those kids and you get a raise or a new job or something, I think that you should be able to use that new money to afford to have more children. That's what intact families would do. When the parents get a raise, they decide if they can afford to add to their family, they don't just automatically spend more money on their existing children." Now, this may have been just poor word choice on your part but that is what I was responding to when I, took the position that "Actually research does support that families here in America don't just keep having children every time more money comes into the household but, in fact, do raise their standard of living."

Now let's break this down into pablum form. In reading comprehension form, my positions are best characterized as follows: the author

(1) Does not believe that intact families would decide to have more children if they get a raise.

(2) The author's statement can best be characterized as intact families do use increased income to raise their standard of living.

(3) The author's statement implies that the United States does not have an over population birth problem and the sentence in support of this implied meaning is "Actually research does support that families here in America don't just keep having children."

(4) The author does not believe that intelligent, responsible people keep breeding every time they get an extra dollar. Therefore we can conclude from the author's statements that if someone is intelligent and responsible they will not keep breeding every time they can afford an additional child.

There is nothing in my posts which expresses or implies why you take the position that you do. It is the chip on your shoulder which causes you to take general statements and reinterpret them to be personal statements regarding you and causes you to additionally mischaracterize my statement to give yourself some thing to be offended by.

__________________________________________________

"'The original poster's question has been asked and answered. In fact, it has been answered ad infinitum ad nauseam. You were the one who took to the specific poster's situation (child support and income) to the general (what intact families do with increased family income) and I quoted your post . Therefore my post is to the general subject of what families do with increased income.'

"Yes, it has been answered. In fact, we both share the same view on the OP's situation. When I took the topic from the specific to the general, I simply stated an opinion that is basically the status quo in a lot of states. 'Honestly, when there are subsequent children involved, I think they should be taken into account before a support order is raised.' This quote is my basic assertion. It falls in line with the CS laws in many states where subsequent children cannot cause a decrease in CS, but will be taken into account if there is an attempt to upward modify. Since this is the law in many cases, I don't see what your problem is with my position. I honestly don't see why we are debating about this. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion as am I. I'll leave it at that."


My response.

Not a chance in this world of your leaving it at that. You will be back with another response. I just won't bother to respond.

But until then, let me continue. I do not understand what you mean by "you stated an opinion that is basically the status quo in a lot of states." Status quo means keeping things as they are, unchanged. I know of no state which maintains the status quo in child support much less a lot of states. All states allow for periodic increases in child support as mandated under federal law. These periodic reviews, of course, usually result in changing the status quo. Now, maybe "status quo" was just an unfortunate word choice on your part and what you meant to say was that most states allow for a small off-setting for other children for whom the obligor has a duty to support, although you stated subsequently born children. But most of the states which do allow for this off-setting for other children that the obligor has a duty to support make no distinction between subsequently born children and those who are born prior to the order which is the subject of the modification in giving the credit; nor do they make a distinction in whether the modification is an increase or a decrease.

You are correct in that I support the law that all children for whom the obligor has a duty to support should be considered in child support calculations--regardless of their birth order. What I disagree with is that the child support order should remain status quo or that if the obligor gets " a raise or a new job or something, I think that you should be able to use that new money to afford to have more children." The cost of living for previously existing children continues to go up and cost increases as children become older and so children who are subjects of a child support order should get a percentage of the "new money" just as the children of an intact families get the benefit of increases in family income. And federal law does mandate those periodic reviews of child support orders.

__________________________________________________


BTW, I also agree with you about the unfortunate lack of reading comprehension skills on the internet. There seems to be about as much of that as there is respect for an opposing viewpoint, willingness to accept new ideas, empathy for other people, and ability to wage a debate without insulting someone's person. On the bright side, there does seem to be a wealth of arrogance and condescension. Apparently, those are things that will never be in short supply.

My response:

Yes, I notice that you managed to get in a rather thinly veiled insult. Some opposing viewpoints are worthy of respect ; others are not even worthy of a response much less respect. Just because a viewpoint is new or is an opposing viewpoint does not translate that the viewpoint has any merit. I see a lot of statements that are posted here that are just plain asinine and if the person were better informed, they would recognize this. I, myself, usually stay with the law rather than opinions and my stating the law and the court's approach usually pisses off people who think the law should be otherwise and so attribute that opposing viewpoint as arrogance, rude, lack of compassion, lack of empathy, educated snob, bigoted, liberal and anything else that they think will offend me. Of course, these people don't realize that if people's opinion of me were important to me--ie. being a people pleaser was important to me --I would never have become a lawyer.