annieo
veteran
Reged: 07/07/10
Posts: 1410
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
|
"That's not Child Support. That's alimony. And thankfully, your idea of how it should be isn't how it is. Child support is supposed to be an equitable split between the parents to support the children."
Yes it is should be an equitable split - parenting time - should be an equitable split - there should be no cs split and yes what I stated is more along alimony so call it whatever you'd like - once the shp is on his/her feet no more monies change hands. The parents should split activities fees and the insurance etc... but no cs - Thankfully not everyone thinks they should be paid to take care of their own children - unfortunately it is the more prevalent attitude - an entitlement attitude (for doing simply what you are suppose to do) has not done our society any good.
Each parent needs to take care of his/her child on his/her time with his/her income except things like insurance, activities for the child, things that one parent should not be expected to foot the entire bill - those should be shared - but no exchange of monies to do ones job as a parent. The child will not suffer because they have what they need at each house albeit one house may have nicer stuff, vacations, cars etc... which means nothing compared to having ones parents equally. I'm just not into material things and if my hubby wants to (in the event of a divorce) give our son something, he can - so what if I can't afford it - our son knows what things cost and is taught the value of a dollar and that rent and food etc... comes first - but that is just me - I am not raising an entitlement attitude individual so he would not have an issue if one house was "better" financially then the other because it does not matter he gets both parents which is far better for him then a "insert whatever here" - one thing my hubby and I agree on completely is not raising an entitled child into an entitled adult.
I could not take cs in the event of a divorce and my husband makes way more than I do but I do not think he should pay me to take care of our child that we decided to have together (yes we would split our child 50/50 even though he does many thing a lot differently - he has the right to make decisions and raise our son in his home how he sees fit) I do think he should contribute to insurance and activities (as should I) but to hand me money - no - I will earn that myself and we will live in my household with what my income provides.
I may think differently than a lot of cp parents because I don't need to control every move of the other parent I can accept different ideas and different ways of doing things I don't need to tell the other parent how what why where and when - trying to control someone is nothing but a power trip that garners frustration on both sides.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7947
|
|
[quote]I disagree. I'm not a fan of 50/50...not all, not even necessarily most.
In some cases it works. In some cases 0/50 works. In some cases 20/80 works, in some cases 40/60 works.
There's too many differences between situations for there to be a standard one-size-fits all. That's how kids end up in situations that hurt them. [/quote]
A quick survey of this board is a good microcosm to the utter failure of typical CP/NCP visitation. I watched 50/50 firsthand work better than any CP/NCP parenting I've ever come into contact with, or experienced personally as a child. What I have noticed is that almost every person who comes out against 50/50 over the years is female, as they seem to believe that they (not the kids) have something to lose in the process.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2007
|
|
You said:
What I have noticed is that almost every person who comes out against 50/50 over the years is female,
My response:
You really can't go by a small community message board. Because there are plenty of men who don't agree with it, either.
You said:
as they seem to believe that they (not the kids) have something to lose in the process.
My response:
You are jumping to an erroneous conclusion based on your personal bias. All one has to do is read all your posts about your mom.
I am against a presumption of 50/50 physical as it does not take the individual into consideration. Add to that a parent who insists on it because s/he has the right to parent at least half the time, you have a scenario that is going to cause harm to a child because that is a parent who doesn't get that parenting is not about their rights, but about doing what is right for the kids.
This is not to say that I haven't seen cases where one party comes in wanting to limit that parenting time because of the child support, but also admitted that both the kids and the other parent wanted more time with each other. That's just as bad as the parent who insists on 50/50 physical when the child can't handle it. And as bad as the parent who is pushing for 50/50 simply to limit their child support order (which does happen more than you think it does).
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
What I've seen is women tend to make less income, and need both child support and the govt. benefits that come with being a custodial parent to survive. The higher wage earning NCP is often financially ravaged, but can survive, often at a minimal level. If the other parent were the NCP, they would have to move in with parents or live on the street without the financial support that being a CP provides.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
"And as bad as the parent who is pushing for 50/50 simply to limit their child support order.
I'm sure that happens, but what I've seen is probably 80% don't want it because they don't want reduced child support.
I suspect if the system were set up so 50/50 physical custody was standard along with paying full child support like there wasn't shared custody, that shared custody would skyrocket.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7947
|
|
Yeah...because the current default of CP/NCP has just worked out so wonderfully in this country....Thankfully the Judge who presided over my wife's divorce saw the inherently superior placement of a 50/50 situation and as well with a stronger push in that direction, in time we'll see an eradication of a dinosaur mentality when it comes to placement. Then again, with this new genearation of children subjected to limited time with one parent, and their inability to understand how to successfully marry and remain married, we'll be sure to have even more divorces to test this theory on.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7947
|
|
[quote]"And as bad as the parent who is pushing for 50/50 simply to limit their child support order.
I'm sure that happens, but what I've seen is probably 80% don't want it because they don't want reduced child support. [/quote]
At work this is what I see from my female coworkers:
- Placing the child in daycare on the days they work, even when their ex's have the days off and are willing to take the child because "it's not their time"
- Not wanting their kids to do "extra" overnights with the ex's because it might "screw up the kids schedule" even though, because we work 12.5 hr shifts, they're dragging the kids out of bed at 4:30 on work days to dump them in daycare at 6am and not pick them up till we shift off at between 7:15 pm and 8 pm.
-
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2007
|
|
[quote]Studies show that children do better long term when physical custody is shared.
So if 10% would do worse, it would be better than the 85% that are getting the short end now. [/quote]
Lets look at the above statement.
1. Children do well and thrive when they have an involved parent(s).
The above is hard to accomplish in divorced families. Why? Well, because there is only so much time and money. Working full-time takes time away from the child. Doing it all by yourself (not talking financially here, I'm talking about household chores, etc.....) takes time away from the child. There are only so many hours in a day. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for a child in this situation to get short changed. I have to work hard so that this doesn't happen in my case.
To be clear, even two parent households where both parents work struggle with this, too.
2. Children do not do well and thrive when they are ignored or abused.
This one is a no-brainer. And can happen in either a broken home or an intact home.
There are studies to support any argument that there is out there.
The question is: Which study had your child as a participant? None of them had my kids in there. So I will go with what I know of my kids and their personalities over an anonymous study.
And given that my oldest is in advanced everything, I must be doing something right. My ex and I split about a month after the oldest entered kindergarten. He's in 6th now.
My youngest is struggling with language arts (she also had special ed before kindergarten due to speech issues and an inability to articulate her thoughts, this may stem from that) but she is in advanced math and otherwise doing well. Her issues don't stem from not being with her father half the time as they existed when he and I were together.
Until parents can set aside their egos and actually do what is best for their kids and become more involved in what their kids are doing, regardless of whether that is 50/50, 70/30 or any other arrangement including being an intact family, there are going to be kids from divorced and intact families who don't do well. Studies aren't going to change that.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
"Until parents can set aside their egos and actually do what is best for their kids and become more involved in what their kids are doing, regardless of whether that is 50/50, 70/30 or any other arrangement including being an intact family, there are going to be kids from divorced and intact families who don't do well."
I strongly agree with your statement. The problem is most divorced parents are denied the chance.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2007
|
|
[quote]"And as bad as the parent who is pushing for 50/50 simply to limit their child support order.
I'm sure that happens, but what I've seen is probably 80% don't want it because they don't want reduced child support.
I suspect if the system were set up so 50/50 physical custody was standard along with paying full child support like there wasn't shared custody, that shared custody would skyrocket.
[/quote]
Maybe, maybe not. But then there are states where it is set up like that. What are the 50/50 rates there?
Because, in my case, there was no way I was agreeing to 50/50 physical. It didn't matter what the child support amount was. He could have offered his entire paycheck and I would have still said no.
Now I would consider it if it wasn't for his work schedule and his distance (which could easily be remedied by him moving closer). And if it were to switch to that, then we would be taking the parenting time into consideration (and, yes, it would greatly reduce the amount of child support I get, but it was never about the money, it was about the kids and making sure they are taken care of). I am a strong believer that parenting time should play a big factor when it comes to calculating child support.
OT: does anyone know why f irm is censored?
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
