would it not be better for the kids??????????
2006-09-02 07:36:05 · 18 answers · asked by kevin g 1 in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
if you see your kids then that is great but you should always help support your kids no matter what
2006-09-02 07:39:25 · answer #1 · answered by sunshine girl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You will still have to pay something. Pay the child support and have the kids every other weekend. It all depends on the what type of father you are if or not it will be better for the children.
2006-09-02 14:42:21 · answer #2 · answered by kitcat 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You would have to work out an agreement between the mother and the courts. I have known people to do that only to regret it in the end because they have their children more than half the time and don't get any money to help support the child.
2006-09-02 18:00:31 · answer #3 · answered by ladysteelersince1976 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
FOR CANADIAN PARENTS: It used to be the case that if any parent had the children at least 40% of the time, then child support may be reduced, or not payable at all.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the 40% rule no longer applies. Support is paid to the parent that provides the primary residential care.
In either case, all parents need to put the children's needs first and their own selfish monetary desires last.
It is about parenting not money.
2006-09-02 15:21:34 · answer #4 · answered by Ottawa Father 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it wouldn't be better for the kids if that is the only reason you want them half the time....and that is what it sounds like. I hope that is not how you meant the question though.
Yes, if you are involved enough to take seriously the responsibilites of them half the time - my ex and I had 50/50 custody and the teacher knew to call me if our child was going to participate in school on the ex's week....if you can't keep up - then it wouldn't be best for the kids.
2006-09-03 12:54:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where I'm from....I have joint custody and the kids half the time but I still have to pay her child support. It's based on income and I make a lot more that her. She pays me for the time I have the kids based on her income and I pay her for the time she has the kids based on my income. Hers payment cancels out and I pay her the difference.
The only way it would work where no money changes hand is if she made as much as me....then both our payments cancel out equally. Or she would have to pay me if I had the kids full time.
2006-09-02 15:13:15 · answer #6 · answered by Tony 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. children have needs (and wants) all the time. they need food, clothes, shelter, education, entertainment.... year round. And money should be available to ensure these are met. Children also need their family all the time. They need the stability and continuity to feel secure and safe that those nearest to them are firm fixtures in their lives. So half the year with one parent and the other with another, is in my opinion, not an option. and money should be available, even more than court ordered child support in a really loving parent-child relationship!
2006-09-02 14:54:26 · answer #7 · answered by Amber B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I actually know of cases where a kid goes one week to mom and one week to dad. It is so hard on the kid though because the parents do not communicate the needs back and forth because one of them does not want to do so. IF the parents work together it could be one of the best things for the kids....they would have both mom and dad...different places. But living relatively close is also a mahor factor in this...like the same town a few streets away....and how many people who divorced or seperated want to live in the same town...?
2006-09-02 15:17:44 · answer #8 · answered by taljalea 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably not, kids have to have a home, food and clothes. Child support is supposed to help with that. Talk to a lawyer, you should have both, visitation and paying child support. You made them now you have to take care of them.
2006-09-02 14:46:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No it wouldn't. Kids need stability, consistency and a routine, they need to follow the same rules everyday, they need to go to sleep and wake up in the same place, they need to know what to expect always. Think about being on vacation, its fun for a while but in the end you are always happy to go 'home' to your own space and your own bed! Without it their world is chaos, they never feel safe, they never feel 'home' and they become confused..in kids that isn't expressed by saying hey you guys are confusing me, get your poop in a group and stop it, its expressed through bad behavior and doing things that aren't good for them. Besides there needs to be home base, there needs to be ONE person that knows where they are, where they are supposed to be and what is going on in their day to day lives, who their friends are, what the rules are! Unless the two of you could orchestrate all of that perfectly and exchange detailed notes on day to day happenings the kid is bound to get lost in the shuffle sooner or later, and if the two of you bothered to communicate that much or that well you would still be together and with all the time you would need to spend ironing things out you might as well be. This is about much bigger things than your wallet and shame on you for putting that above who your children grow up to be! This is what we grown ups call responsibility, it can be a b*tch can't it?
2006-09-02 14:51:34 · answer #10 · answered by dappersmom 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He should be doing both. Even if he has the kids half the time, one person is still responsible for buying most or all of their clothes, their school supplies, day care, medical bills, health insurance, college savings, extracurricular activities, etc. You can agree on a reduced amount if he feeds them, provides clothing for them at his house, takes them on vacations, splits most expenses, but he should still pay SOMETHING toward the rest...
2006-09-02 14:41:25 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋