happythoughts 0 #26 July 21, 2008 QuoteI didn't see any indication that the judge had ordered visitation, beyond the supervised visitation that Guppie said he had been attending. In every divorce that I know of, the custody and visitation are spelled out. Perhaps I have the wrong terminology. I call that a court order. It was mentioned that he had visitation rights and they were being ignored. Therefore, ignoring the order. QuoteIf she was refusing visitation, she would look bad, so it's better for him if he does not look bad also. He should get a better attorney. Behavior has very little impact on decisions. Only the naive suffer. As a friend told me, "For $20K, you will get what you want". I now believe that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #27 July 21, 2008 "For $20K, you will get what you want". I now believe that. Quote Ahh... the 'BLIND' justice system...more accurately, how much justice can you afford?! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #28 July 21, 2008 Quote "For $20K, you will get what you want". I now believe that. Quote Ahh... the 'BLIND' justice system...more accurately, how much justice can you afford?! Justice is fair. Rich people are treated equally without regard to race or gender. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 3 #29 July 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe fact that he seems to have no care for his children's welfare was probably quite obvious to the judge. The "fact" ? The internet psychic predicts the thoughts of a judge through the internet. I'm not predicting the thoughts of the judge. I'm making an educated guess that the judge was able to discern the father's obvious lack of regard for the welfare of his children. You are, after all, talking about a man who does not want to pay child support unless he gets visitation on his own terms. The children have no control over visitation, but his thought process is such that it allows him to punish his children because he's not getting what he wants. I've known a lot of family court judges. Most of them are pretty discerning. QuoteQuoteHe is still the children's father, and his concern should be for their welfare. Cutting off their support because he is refused visitation shows clearly where his concern lies. First, you are equating support and their welfare as a fact. There are no facts given to support this theory. There are more implied facts to support this theory than your theory that they'll do as well without his support. The fact that the judge--who has seen the financials of both parties--awarded support is more than a mere indication that the support is needed for the welfare of the children. The fact that most, if not all, states have pretty stringent guidelines on appropriate minimum support amounts is another. QuoteMany people realize that children rarely get the value from support. It ends up being ex-wife lifestyle support, not child support. Kids don't need a new BMW. Children do not "rarely" get the value from support. Very few of the single mothers and fathers I know have much left over for themselves, because they spend it all on the kids. QuoteAnd what about where her concern lies? Here is a parent who wants to be in the lives of his children and she refuses to allow that. Where is her concern for her children? She wants them to grow up fatherless? This is a form of child emotional abuse. You're talking about a guy who is actually allowed visitation. Limited and supervised, to be sure, but he is not totally cut off from his kids. It may be that this woman lied, and he doesn't have the issues she claims, but even if that is true, it does not speak well for him that he has the mentality to cut off support to his children because she may be a vindictive psycho. QuoteYou seem to ignore a lot of facts. You seem to be ignoring the child support guidelines and the attitude that it's okay not to support one's children because one is angry with their other parent.If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #30 July 21, 2008 His role should be that of a father, not an ATM. A father provides a wide variety of types of support, including emotional, educational, and financial. The mother should not be trying to limit his role to the one type of support that is advantageous to her. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #31 July 21, 2008 QuoteHis role should be that of a father, not an ATM. A father provides a wide variety of types of support, including emotional, educational, and financial. The mother should not be trying to limit his role to the one type of support that is advantageous to her. Blues, Dave i agree - however there are cases, unfortunately, where the father should be exiled from the children. In those cases, he should still be responsible, but to a lesser degree.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
guppie01 0 #32 July 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteHis role should be that of a father, not an ATM. A father provides a wide variety of types of support, including emotional, educational, and financial. The mother should not be trying to limit his role to the one type of support that is advantageous to her. Blues, Dave i agree - however there are cases, unfortunately, where the father should be exiled from the children. In those cases, he should still be responsible, but to a lesser degree. I've enjoyed reading the different perspectives.... I have been butting heads with the father as I am of the opinion he should pay regardless, and he obviously does not feel that way. It's been a struggle trying to understand his mindset. I'm also sort of shocked that half of the people in the poll agree with him - very interesting! edited to add: In the end it is a legal rule - and feelings / emotions have no bearing. If the judge orders support and he chooses not to pay he is in violation of the law - hopefully he can wrap his mind around this. g"Let's do something romantic this Saturday... how bout we bust out the restraints?" Raddest Ho this side of Jersey #1 - MISS YOU OMG, is she okay? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #33 July 21, 2008 Quote First, you are equating support and their welfare as a fact. There are no facts given to support this theory. Many people realize that children rarely get the value from support. It ends up being ex-wife lifestyle support, not child support. Kids don't need a new BMW. Not necessarily. Most parents don't keep a separate account for "child support" and spend that account solely on the kids. Child support goes to help pay the rent, make the car payment, pay the grocery bill, pay the utility bills, etc... If the parent has a decent job and can afford a nice car, why do you automatically assume that the parent is spending the child support money on the new car? If the child support money is going to cover the non-custodial parent's half of the child's costs, of course the custodial parent is going to have more money to spend on other things than they would have otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #34 July 21, 2008 Quote edited to add: In the end it is a legal rule - and feelings / emotions have no bearing. If the judge orders support and he chooses not to pay he is in violation of the law - hopefully he can wrap his mind around this. g Just because the court says it is so doesn NOT mean that it is the correct, moral, or best intrest of the child to do . . . just that it is what you say it is - what the court puts down. Your opinion of "PAY . . . No matter what" opens the door for "Moms" to be proffessional baby factories and live off what I pay the gov't in taxes. It also opens the door for a woman to go get her hair done twice a month at 160/ea and a new car at "Someone elses" expense, and then turn around in front of "that someone else" and tell her daughter that she doesn't have any money to buy her school clothes, or school supplies, while she tells her to get into her nice new car, and drives off.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #35 July 21, 2008 QuoteI'm making an educated guess that the judge was able to discern the father's obvious lack of regard for the welfare of his children. Obvious? The only thing that is obvious to me is the reverse. He is pursing his visitation. He obviously is concerned about being involved in his childrens life. QuoteYou are, after all, talking about a man who does not want to pay child support unless he gets visitation on his own terms. Nope. I'm talking about a man who has the same frustration as most divorced men. The court enforces all decisions that benefit the woman, but largely ignores the rights of men. QuoteThe children have no control over visitation, but his thought process is such that it allows him to punish his children because he's not getting what he wants. Once again, another incorrect psychic prediction. He is not "punishing his children". He is taking the only legal recourse that he has. The court system. Rights are not one-sided. Judgments should not be enforced one-sided either. QuoteI've known a lot of family court judges. Most of them are pretty discerning. I've just seen rubber-stamping bureaucrats that routinely give women custody in 95% of the cases without "discerning" crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VanillaSkyGirl 6 #36 July 21, 2008 QuoteYes. Why do the kids always get punished and used as pawns in their parents' battles? I agree 100%. Yes, he should pay. He should do the right thing and support his children, regardless of what she is doing. I feel sorry for the children. Hopefully, the parents will learn how to put their children first, so they won't be too damaged by this. I'm hoping that the situation is worked out in the children's favor, whatever that may be (more visitation time w/ father, more financial support, etc.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #37 July 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteYes. Why do the kids always get punished and used as pawns in their parents' battles? I agree 100%. Yes, he should pay. He should do the right thing and support his children, regardless of what she is doing. I feel sorry for the children. Hopefully, the parents will learn how to put their children first, so they won't be too damaged by this. I'm hoping that the situation is worked out in the children's favor, whatever that may be (more visitation time w/ father, more financial support, etc.) You should really see my scenario above . . . it is a real one and i saw it first hand. There are no absolutes and the system should not be run like there is.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #38 July 21, 2008 QuoteIf the parent has a decent job and can afford a nice car, why do you automatically assume that the parent is spending the child support money on the new car? Because she told me so. A new BMW that she had been wanting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #39 July 21, 2008 There are plenty of situations in which the father should be held responsible for child support but the court finds ample reason for that person to not go anywhere near the children."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
guppie01 0 #40 July 21, 2008 I completely agree that there are women out there who abuse the system... and YES I feel that it is moraly wrong.... and there are some judges out there who make wrongful judgements (SHOCK). However I DO NOT agree with a person who chooses not to pay just out of spite b/c he/she has a bitch with the ex. (Where's the morality there???) Both parties need to separate their feelings for each other and realize that they are done - move forward and do something positive for the children - like taking responsibility as a parent. As a very wise and mature woman stated - there are two separate issues here: a) divorce, b) child custody, and they need to be treated as two separate items. xoxo g"Let's do something romantic this Saturday... how bout we bust out the restraints?" Raddest Ho this side of Jersey #1 - MISS YOU OMG, is she okay? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #41 July 21, 2008 QuoteHopefully, the parents will learn how to put their children first, so they won't be too damaged by this. That is why this is a thread. Because somebody isn't. The first part of the remedy is to go to court. The second part is to demand that the decision of the court is enforced. "Fair" is mostly subjective. The courts are, theoretically, the approximation of what society has determined to be fair. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #42 July 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteIf the parent has a decent job and can afford a nice car, why do you automatically assume that the parent is spending the child support money on the new car? Because she told me so. A new BMW that she had been wanting. Yep and the Thank you phone call i received as she signed the papers for her new second car. one of those "Thanks, I just couldn't have bout it without you."I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #43 July 21, 2008 QuoteIt also opens the door for a woman to go get her hair done twice a month at 160/ea and a new car at "Someone elses" expense, and then turn around in front of "that someone else" and tell her daughter that she doesn't have any money to buy her school clothes, or school supplies, while she tells her to get into her nice new car, and drives off. That's what I woulda done fer sure if I'd gotten even a dime in child support from my kid's sperm donor. I'm sure those $160 haircuts would have helped me get a job that paid enough to cover rent, food AND utilities, and my kid wouldn't have had to climb out the passenger window to get out of the car. I still don't understand why my kid didn't think that climbing out the passenger window of the car was cool. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #44 July 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteIt also opens the door for a woman to go get her hair done twice a month at 160/ea and a new car at "Someone elses" expense, and then turn around in front of "that someone else" and tell her daughter that she doesn't have any money to buy her school clothes, or school supplies, while she tells her to get into her nice new car, and drives off. That's what I woulda done fer sure if I'd gotten even a dime in child support from my kid's sperm donor. I'm sure those $160 haircuts would have helped me get a job that paid enough to cover rent, food AND utilities, and my kid wouldn't have had to climb out the passenger window to get out of the car. I still don't understand why my kid didn't think that climbing out the passenger window of the car was cool. That falls on him, not me. I do what the court says to do. It is not you, or your like that I seak of. But because your "SD" didn't/doesn't pay - it skews the views of CS for everyone. There are ways to insure that he does too. There are services that will serve judgements for that kind of deadbeat dad. You can have his liscense revoked. You can have his passport taken away and you can see him put in jail. Tell me - who is happier . . . the child that gets nothing but sees it coming in, or the child that never knew anythhing about it?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
guppie01 0 #45 July 21, 2008 Quote Tell me - who is happier . . . the child that gets nothing but sees it coming in, or the child that never knew anythhing about it? g"Let's do something romantic this Saturday... how bout we bust out the restraints?" Raddest Ho this side of Jersey #1 - MISS YOU OMG, is she okay? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #46 July 21, 2008 Quote Quote Tell me - who is happier . . . the child that gets nothing but sees it coming in, or the child that never knew anythhing about it? g Maybe you can ask her when you meet her.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #47 July 21, 2008 Quotea) divorce, b) child custody, and they need to be treated as two separate items. Legally? They both come out of the same court proceedings that got them divorced. If the support is a day late, free enforcement is just a phone call and a pair of handcuffs away. If visitation is refused, it will be a court date 3 months away, with $4,000 in attorney fees. The court will give a ruling that is the same as the one in the divorce, and largely ignored as previous. The court is impotent. What is the solution? To use their greed as the lever that provides discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #48 July 21, 2008 QuoteQuotea) divorce, b) child custody, and they need to be treated as two separate items. Legally? They both come out of the same court proceedings that got them divorced. If the support is a day late, free enforcement is just a phone call and a pair of handcuffs away. If visitation is refused, it will be a court date 3 months away, with $4,000 in attorney fees. The court will give a ruling that is the same as the one in the divorce, and largely ignored as previous. The court is impotent. What is the solution? To use their greed as the lever that provides discussion. You mean the system is biased?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
guppie01 0 #49 July 21, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Tell me - who is happier . . . the child that gets nothing but sees it coming in, or the child that never knew anythhing about it? g Maybe you can ask her when you meet her. Why would I want to turn a loving joyous event into something depressing when meeting a beautiful young lady??? g"Let's do something romantic this Saturday... how bout we bust out the restraints?" Raddest Ho this side of Jersey #1 - MISS YOU OMG, is she okay? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #50 July 21, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Tell me - who is happier . . . the child that gets nothing but sees it coming in, or the child that never knew anythhing about it? g Maybe you can ask her when you meet her. Why would I want to turn a loving joyous event into something depressing when meeting a beautiful young lady??? g Dunno - did you know she reads the forums here?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
