Ex trying to receive government assist

[LdiJ]

There is a huge gulf between taking care of your kids and paying for your ex's new BMW -- I know, I've been there. Our system for marriages, divorces, and child support is broken and really quite silly when you look at it objectively.

For example: When you have two people, one of whom is significantly better off than the other, and they have a child, what possible sense does it make to place the child with the poorer one? Let's strip out all of the noise. Two parents who both love the kid and don't have abuse, drugs or anything else. Just two parents. One makes $90k a year and the other makes $27k a year. Who is better situated to care for that child?

The one who makes $90k a year - every time and twice on Sunday. Money equals opportunity. The person making $90k a year most likely has friends that make incomes in the same range. They have different mindsets toward money and education and activities than the person making $27k a year. While the child might still attend public school, there is a world of difference between the public schools in the $90k neighborhoods and the schools in the $27k neighborhoods. It is the difference between growing up with people that build companies and the people that hope to pay bills. The kid will be much better off with the person making $90k a year.

Now child support cannot change that. The person making $27k will still be making $27k and associating with those people. Even if the child support is $20k a year, the $27k worker is still surrounded by $27k associates and friends. The money gets spent - largely not on the child - because the $27k person is living too close to poverty to be able to avoid spending that money on anything but pulling him or herself up just a little farther. But it isn't earned income. There is no respect for that money. Or the person who earned it. Instead of child support, it becomes charity, an entitlement - but not for the kid - for the parent.

It is a flawed and broken system. And yes, largely speaking, the non custodial parent gets screwed -- especially if they make more money than the other parent. I'm not saying they shouldn't pay their child support. But there is nothing wrong with recognizing that they are about to get screwed.

DC

I am not sure that I can agree with that analysis because there is so much more involved with what is in the best interest of children than mere money.

 

[TigerD]

I am not sure that I can agree with that analysis because there is so much more involved with what is in the best interest of children than mere money.

I agree there is. But, that is far too complicated to attempt to address in a forum like this.

DC

 

[Ladyback1]

There is a huge gulf between taking care of your kids and paying for your ex's new BMW -- I know, I've been there. Our system for marriages, divorces, and child support is broken and really quite silly when you look at it objectively.

For example: When you have two people, one of whom is significantly better off than the other, and they have a child, what possible sense does it make to place the child with the poorer one? Let's strip out all of the noise. Two parents who both love the kid and don't have abuse, drugs or anything else. Just two parents. One makes $90k a year and the other makes $27k a year. Who is better situated to care for that child?

The one who makes $90k a year - every time and twice on Sunday. Money equals opportunity. The person making $90k a year most likely has friends that make incomes in the same range. They have different mindsets toward money and education and activities than the person making $27k a year. While the child might still attend public school, there is a world of difference between the public schools in the $90k neighborhoods and the schools in the $27k neighborhoods. It is the difference between growing up with people that build companies and the people that hope to pay bills. The kid will be much better off with the person making $90k a year.

Now child support cannot change that. The person making $27k will still be making $27k and associating with those people. Even if the child support is $20k a year, the $27k worker is still surrounded by $27k associates and friends. The money gets spent - largely not on the child - because the $27k person is living too close to poverty to be able to avoid spending that money on anything but pulling him or herself up just a little farther. But it isn't earned income. There is no respect for that money. Or the person who earned it. Instead of child support, it becomes charity, an entitlement - but not for the kid - for the parent.

It is a flawed and broken system. And yes, largely speaking, the non custodial parent gets screwed -- especially if they make more money than the other parent. I'm not saying they shouldn't pay their child support. But there is nothing wrong with recognizing that they are about to get screwed.

DC

I can't even begin to express just how flawed this thinking is!

 

[ecmst12]

I don't think words can possibly express how offended I am by DC. Your values are completely backwards.

 

[Ohiogal]

I figured as much. It's tough knowing I have to support a man that refuses (decent paying) jobs due to the fact that they interfere with his 'religion'.

Thanks guys.

Its called supporting your child. You get to reimburse him for the money spent on your child. How have you been providing financial support? Quit whining.

 

[Proserpina]

How do I put this....

Well, dc does have a point. It's not a nice point and it's not a politically correct point, but it is a valid point. Certainly in this country, money does determine to an enormous extent which kids end up with certain perks and privileges and which kids...don't. The big thing missing though is the fact that a poor stay-at-home-parent isn't having 16 nannies and a real baby goat doing the parenting, and that same SAHP can offer a child fantastic opportunities too.

Alas, we're not too keen on that. Money talks, and forget about the daily trips to the zoo, the beach, heck, to the playground because these things cost a minimal amount of money and therefore aren't worthwhile. Having the child cared for by a nanny who earns triple what most people earn in year, is much better. Oh, yes, that IS Tarquin's new pony. Oh, no he can't ride yet - gosh don't be silly, he's only 6 months old! Why couldn't he use his sister's pony? Oh well Sadie has outgrown him and we can't have Tarquin on a hand-me-down horse, of course!

Yes, this is deliberately extreme and it's deliberately ridiculous.

The problem is, it's also not exactly an unusual mindset.

 

[single317dad]

For example: When you have two people, one of whom is significantly better off than the other, and they have a child, what possible sense does it make to place the child with the poorer one? Let's strip out all of the noise. Two parents who both love the kid and don't have abuse, drugs or anything else. Just two parents. One makes $90k a year and the other makes $27k a year. Who is better situated to care for that child?

I don't know; maybe the parent who actually wants the job? Yes, money matters. Being a happy kid who's loved and cared for matters much more.

 

[Pinkie39]

How do I put this....

Well, dc does have a point. It's not a nice point and it's not a politically correct point, but it is a valid point. Certainly in this country, money does determine to an enormous extent which kids end up with certain perks and privileges and which kids...don't. The big thing missing though is the fact that a poor stay-at-home-parent isn't having 16 nannies and a real baby goat doing the parenting, and that same SAHP can offer a child fantastic opportunities too.

Alas, we're not too keen on that. Money talks, and forget about the daily trips to the zoo, the beach, heck, to the playground because these things cost a minimal amount of money and therefore aren't worthwhile. Having the child cared for by a nanny who earns triple what most people earn in year, is much better. Oh, yes, that IS Tarquin's new pony. Oh, no he can't ride yet - gosh don't be silly, he's only 6 months old! Why couldn't he use his sister's pony? Oh well Sadie has outgrown him and we can't have Tarquin on a hand-me-down horse, of course!

Yes, this is deliberately extreme and it's deliberately ridiculous.

The problem is, it's also not exactly an unusual mindset.

Well said!! Would anyone here want their child raised by a wealthy person like one of the Kardashians, Paris Hilton, or Britney Spears vs a Mother Teresa?

I have a relative who is very well off financially and earns a high six figure salary. I have another relative who earns less than $30,000 a year. If my husband and I were to pass away before our children are grown, I'd a thousand times rather they be raised by my poorer relative, because of the values she has, compared to my wealthier relative.

 

[Zigner]

I have relatives who earn a lot (think low 7-figures) who are the most kind-hearted people I know. They started with nothing and worked hard for what they have.

It's not the money, it's the person.

 

[Proserpina]

I can't think of a single poster here, ever, who has been anywhere near rock-star status financially.

The vast majority live by modest means. "Modest" is of course subjective, and I realize that

But the fact remains, we have certain values that we apparently hold dear and the dollar does have a well-established place on that list. The question of rich vs. poor, when the caregiving is split exactly down the middle, matters. Legally, of course, it isn't considered. But as a practical matter, what is the court to do in that situation? Public opinion screams out that the lesser-off parent cannot be penalized for that. Behind closed doors, I suspect that many of those same screamers would silently nod their heads and acknowledge that richer is better than poorer, all else being equal.


Sucks, but it is what it is.

 

[Proserpina]

I have relatives who earn a lot (think low 7-figures) who are the most kind-hearted people I know. They started with nothing and worked hard for what they have.

It's not the money, it's the person.

On this forum, I bet every single person will agree (because it's true and none of us have ever had to make the choice between Rich Mom Joanna versus Poor Dad Joe).

This is taking it way, way off-topic...but has anyone seen that one reality show (which is about as real as unicorn farts) where the parents are fighting for a place in a certain pre-school right from the child's birth?

I can't even wrap my head around that, but I have to (forcibly, perhaps) accept that it happens.

Part of the problem is that we don't want to say out loud that children are like any other segment of society. Some geniuses, some complete dunces, and the majority are just about average. I think we do know that, deep down; we just can't talk about it because talking about it makes it real.

Oh Jeez would someone caffeinate me already?!

 

[TigerD]

I don't know; maybe the parent who actually wants the job? Yes, money matters. Being a happy kid who's loved and cared for matters much more.

And in my example - both parents wanted the job. The only difference was money.

For everybody else that is upset - look around you and the people with whom you associate. Those are your peers. Your socio-economic status affects what your kids will do. Who they will become.

This isn't a rich v poor discussion. Surely we can agree that $90k a year isn't wealthy. But it is a discussion about perceptions and opportunities. Some people see opportunity all around them and some see none. They are both right. If you look in a typical law firm, you will a similar style of dress. People conform to the group - positive peer pressure. Same thing at construction sites, restaurants, and fortune 500 companies. If you surround yourself with people making minimum wage, you will wind up making minimum wage. If you surround yourself with conservative Christians, you will become more conservative and Christian. If you surround yourself with college professors, you will become more liberal and professor-like.

But don't for a second think we don't have a defacto caste system. Children of bankers do not play with children of fast food employees. They go to different schools, wear different clothes, and are raised with different values. Different perceived opportunities and values.

When those kids reach high school, they will be discussing their lives and their futures. Will those discussions be that there is an opening down at the plant, who got pregnant, how to present to an angel, or college rankings? Those discussions will be largely dictated by who you and your kids associate with and where they live. And that is dictated by money.

DC

 

[LdiJ]

On this forum, I bet every single person will agree (because it's true and none of us have ever had to make the choice between Rich Mom Joanna versus Poor Dad Joe).

This is taking it way, way off-topic...but has anyone seen that one reality show (which is about as real as unicorn farts) where the parents are fighting for a place in a certain pre-school right from the child's birth?

I can't even wrap my head around that, but I have to (forcibly, perhaps) accept that it happens.

Part of the problem is that we don't want to say out loud that children are like any other segment of society. Some geniuses, some complete dunces, and the majority are just about average. I think we do know that, deep down; we just can't talk about it because talking about it makes it real.

Oh Jeez would someone caffeinate me already?!

I think that I am particularly sensitive to this particular issue because I have been quite well off...think 6 figure salary and a full time housekeeper/nanny, and I have been very poor...and now I am just medium.

I am the same person now that I was in all of those incarnations...and have lived in the same home during all of those incarnations (thank God for the wisdom to live modestly even when making six figures). So, what type of parent I was/am and what sort of parent I would/could have been would have been the same no matter what incarnation. The kind of emotional nurturing I could/would give never changed.

I was always the primary parent. Did that mean that our daughter loved my ex any less...absolutely no. Would both I and my daughter have been devastated if some judge said she had to live with her father because at one point in our lives he made more money than I did? Absolutely. Would it have been equally devastating to our daughter when I got more financial stable than him if she had to come back and live with me? Absolutely again.

Yes, the child support system stinks in many ways...for the parents. However, maybe that isn't such a bad thing. I am quite disturbed by the whole ethos of young people having this mindset of thinking that a relationship isn't serious unless you have children...and the additional ethos of thinking that marriage is disposable if you get bored. It might take another generation or two, but I am hoping that what will eventually happen is that nobody will have children unless they fully understand and are prepared for the consequences.

 

[Proserpina]

I think that I am particularly sensitive to this particular issue because I have been quite well off...think 6 figure salary and a full time housekeeper/nanny, and I have been very poor...and now I am just medium.

I am the same person now that I was in all of those incarnations...and have lived in the same home during all of those incarnations (thank God for the wisdom to live modestly even when making six figures). So, what type of parent I was/am and what sort of parent I would/could have been would have been the same no matter what incarnation. The kind of emotional nurturing I could/would give never changed.

I was always the primary parent. Did that mean that our daughter loved my ex any less...absolutely no. Would both I and my daughter have been devastated if some judge said she had to live with her father because at one point in our lives he made more money than I did? Absolutely. Would it have been equally devastating to our daughter when I got more financial stable than him if she had to come back and live with me? Absolutely again.

Yes, the child support system stinks in many ways...for the parents. However, maybe that isn't such a bad thing. I am quite disturbed by the whole ethos of young people having this mindset of thinking that a relationship isn't serious unless you have children...and the additional ethos of thinking that marriage is disposable if you get bored. It might take another generation or two, but I am hoping that what will eventually happen is that nobody will have children unless they fully understand and are prepared for the consequences.

Right, but you know your ex and your circumstances.

To a third party (judge), who doesn't know your personal life as well as you do, there is only one question, really. All else being equal, do we flip a coin? Or do we rely on the unspoken perception that he who hath the dosh can provide best for the child?

Even on this forum, there's an interesting contradiction.

When a parent is needing child support, one of the first questions asked is often "How do you intend to support your child?". Well, that parent can't win. If s/he's working two or three jobs, it might be better to let the other parent have custody because then the child will at least have a parent able to stay home and provide that nurturing. Or at least that's not an uncommon response.

If the parent says s/he is a stay-at-home parent, they're very often told "Well you can't afford to be, so find a job. Or maybe give custody to the other parent because the child can be provided for".

It can't be both, yet the contradiction exists nonetheless.

 

[Just Blue]

There is a huge gulf between taking care of your kids and paying for your ex's new BMW -- I know, I've been there. Our system for marriages, divorces, and child support is broken and really quite silly when you look at it objectively.

For example: When you have two people, one of whom is significantly better off than the other, and they have a child, what possible sense does it make to place the child with the poorer one? Let's strip out all of the noise. Two parents who both love the kid and don't have abuse, drugs or anything else. Just two parents. One makes $90k a year and the other makes $27k a year. Who is better situated to care for that child?

The one who makes $90k a year - every time and twice on Sunday. Money equals opportunity. The person making $90k a year most likely has friends that make incomes in the same range. They have different mindsets toward money and education and activities than the person making $27k a year. While the child might still attend public school, there is a world of difference between the public schools in the $90k neighborhoods and the schools in the $27k neighborhoods. It is the difference between growing up with people that build companies and the people that hope to pay bills. The kid will be much better off with the person making $90k a year.

Now child support cannot change that. The person making $27k will still be making $27k and associating with those people. Even if the child support is $20k a year, the $27k worker is still surrounded by $27k associates and friends. The money gets spent - largely not on the child - because the $27k person is living too close to poverty to be able to avoid spending that money on anything but pulling him or herself up just a little farther. But it isn't earned income. There is no respect for that money. Or the person who earned it. Instead of child support, it becomes charity, an entitlement - but not for the kid - for the parent.

It is a flawed and broken system. And yes, largely speaking, the non custodial parent gets screwed -- especially if they make more money than the other parent. I'm not saying they shouldn't pay their child support. But there is nothing wrong with recognizing that they are about to get screwed.

DC

As a parent who made 50k a year through overtime (50 hrs a week)...just so my child would live in a nice town and have all advantages I could possibly give her...I find you post to be small minded.