Presently, the non-custodial parent pays child support to the custodial parent. Typically, the non-custodial parent gets the child every other weekend, or in an average month, just 4 out of 30 days.
Payment seems backwards to me. Rather, the custodial parent should be required to pay the non-custodial parent to compensate them for the loss of their child.
That is how it works with everything else in a divorce. For example, if one party is awarded the house, that party must pay the other party. Same with a car, boat, or anything else. But, not with a child. Shouldn't who pays whom be reversed?
2007-11-09 14:54:28 · 9 answers · asked by Uhlan 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I don't think you're a deadbeat father - I think "outta here" is one of those FemNazis. Hopefully the amount of child support you have to pay isn't too debilitating and exhorbitant like ours. My husband has to pay $2,000/month PLUS he still pays all the medical/dental insurance for a teenage daughter who won't even speak to him. All this money goes to her mega millionaire mother who is so cheap that I doubt any of it even goes toward the daughter.
It ticks me off when FemNazis like the grey haired woman above me assume child support is some measley amount. For us, $2000 a month is HUGE. We don't make enough to get by and have taken out cash advances on credit cards just to pay it. We sold one car and I drive a 17 yr old Toyota with body damage. We live in a basic house. The mom owns 3 houses and lives in a fancy place in a rich neighborhood. My husband now works long days way into the night, all to make enough so we won't go completely bankrupt with this exhorbitant child support. The laws have turned so in places like California, the mother gets paid tons just because she gave birth to a kid and the father (and his new wife) have to bend over and take it. I'm very sorry if something similar happened to you.
2007-11-09 16:37:41 · answer #1 · answered by Wintergirl 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That's an interesting concept. I never thought of it that way. But the fact that the non-custodial parent has "lost" the child doesn't negate the need for the child to be taken care of, no matter who is caring for it. Child support is for the child, not the other parent, although the custodial parent sometimes doesn't use the money solely for the child, which I also think is a bad thing. The custodial parent should have to go to the courts on a monthly basis to get money for the child's care, AFTER she/he gets receipts for the actual cost of the care, be it diapers, housing, food, whatever. It would save a lot of arguments and assure the money was always being spent on the child.
2007-11-09 15:02:33 · answer #2 · answered by kathi1vee 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Payments are not for the parent, it is for the child! The custodial parent who the child resides with should and does get the money for the CHILD!
You are just looking for a pity party and are selfish it seems to me.
2007-11-09 15:03:45 · answer #3 · answered by lizards 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Another deadbeat father....
The custodial parent provides EVERYTHING for the child. The house, food, clothing, shoes, school expenses, babysitting or day care, 24 hour a day care, tending to the child when sick. Pays for doctors, dentists, snacks, medication.
The non-custodial parent pays for nothing beyond the pitiful child support he may or may not pay depending upon his car payments.
A child is not a house, car or boat.
Grow up and pay your measly little child support. Believe me, it doesn't mean much but every little bit helps.
2007-11-09 15:47:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
ummm...no. Children are not to be sold or traded like furniture or vehicles. The money should follow the children since it is for their benefit anyhow. If they spend more time with the custodial parent, that's who would be responsible for making sure the children are taken care of.
Children aren't "worth" a dollar amount. If lost time was so important to you, you wouldn't be talking about the money part.
2007-11-09 15:06:47 · answer #5 · answered by maribeth 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Child support payments are for the benefit of the CHILD, not the parent.
Stop thinking about yourself and start thinking about the child.
2007-11-09 14:59:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Children are not property!
The payments are for the support of the children not to pay for their acquisition.
2007-11-09 14:57:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
http://jmsoul.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/divinelolwut.jpg
2007-11-09 15:02:38 · answer #8 · answered by Louis 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Solomon had the right idea. The kid should be cut in half.
2007-11-09 15:05:21 · answer #9 · answered by bahbdorje 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋