Ex trying to receive government assist

[TigerD]

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.

Then you shouldn't have worked overtime "just so my child would live in a nice town and have all advantages I could possibly give her," because that is exactly what I'm talking about.

DC

 

[Just Blue]

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

Google up Marblehead Ma. One of the most wealthy towns in my state. I rented a townhouse there so that my daughter could have the best public school education I could give her. I made 10 dollars an hour and busted my hump to do so. She graduated 3rd in her class and went on to university where she graduated top of that 3k class.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

My ex husband (my oldest child lives with him) is trying to get government assistance for his new family.

Is this a split custody arrangement? If so, I can see where support is not ordered from either parent.

 

[TigerD]

Google up Marblehead Ma. One of the most wealthy towns in my state. I rented a townhouse there so that my daughter could have the best public school education I could give her. I made 10 dollars an hour and busted my hump to do so. She graduated 3rd in her class and went on to university where she graduated top of that 3k class.

Great. It makes a difference.
I dated a girl from Haverhill, but split my time growing up between Agawam and summers in Edgartown.

DC

 

[MomGT123]

I see both sides of this argument. The placement of the children should not be solely based off of who has more money but yet, who has historically been the primary care giver. Why should the children be taken from the individual that has been the one mostly responsible for taking care of their day to day needs? Ordered child support is intended to allow that to continue and cause as little disruption as possible. However, I think there are rare exceptions and I know that my situation is sadly not common.

When my ex and I split up, I had been the primary caretaker for many years (SAHM). However, even with child support that would have been ordered I would have been struggling even with a part/full-time job. Their dad, even if not the primary caretaker, was a good dad. I had no issues with his care concerning the children. Therefore, I agreed to have him as the CP so that they would have more advantages that came with a larger paycheck (not rich, but not struggling to scrape by) and be more comfortable. Was this easy for me? Absolutely not. But I knew that they were well taken care of, in a good environment and would be able to live in a better environment and take part in more activities than I could offer them.

I got my own place, finished school and worked two jobs at one time. I did what I needed to do in order to better my situation knowing that my children were well cared for when they weren�t with me. Their dad and I are now on even playing ground (relatively, we don�t know exactly what each other make but we�re both comfortable and able to care for our children equally). We purposally live in the same school district and now share 50/50 custody (week on/week off) since they are older. We mutually agreed (I know that either one of us could take this to court at any time but we have always gotten along great�.just not good romantically) that there is no child support owed to either of us. Instead we split their time equally, and split all school, extracurriculars, insurance and any other costs down the middle when it comes to them. Unfortunately, most ex�s can�t work something like this out. The other parent, for the most part, will not cause damage to your child. You most likely saw something in them at one point or another and you need to remember that when it comes to your children. Just because you�re no longer attracted to them doesn�t mean that they shouldn�t have an equal hand in raising your mutual child(ren). I know I got off topic a bit and this is only my personal experience but I get so irritated with people today when it comes to co-parenting and claiming they want what is best for their children.

 

[single317dad]

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 doesn't have to be true. Granted, it is true in many cases, but with some brains and motivation a person can move up the ladder; more easily, one can move down as well. I, for example, grew up very poor (think bottom 5% of US family incomes). By age 30 I was very successful. I left that lifestyle and by choice have not returned to it, for one simple reason: there's much more to life than financial success. As long as one has enough money to live, any additional, while possibly beneficial, is wholly unnecessary.

Besides, what's wrong with making a humble living on a farm? You'd get awfully hungry if no one did it.

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.

Again, sometimes true, but doesn't have to be. I grew up in a very poor area dominated by racist Christian manual laborers. I am none of those things. I am not a special case; just a guy who had a little ambition. Lawyers (and other professions) all dress the same because their employers require it. If there was no dress code anywhere, people would dress with more variety, like they already do in places with no dress code.

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.

When my son reaches college age, opportunities will be there for him. Harvard? Maybe; maybe not. But we've got highly ranked law, medical, agricultural, engineering, and veterinary programs right here at state schools. There's no reason this kid of a semi-retired computer geek/gentleman farmer can't go on to be a Washington lobbyist, an executive for Boeing, or a pediatric surgeon (though why he'd want to be the former is beyond me).

Your measure of success and happiness is lacking. Don't feel bad; mine was too for a long time. I had to get out and see what having money was like to realize I didn't really need it as badly as I had thought.

 

[Proserpina]

What I'm getting is that DC is really doing little more than uncovering a truth that we ("we" meaning "society in general") don't like to acknowledge.

And in that, he's right. There comes a point where I do think we need to at least accept that yes, money talks very very loudly.

It won't win every battle, but it will win enough that the perception will continue for a good long time.

 

[TigerD]

Your measure of success and happiness is lacking. Don't feel bad; mine was too for a long time. I had to get out and see what having money was like to realize I didn't really need it as badly as I had thought.

My measure of success or happiness has little to do with money. It has everything to do with my kids and my hobbies - granted money creates opportunity to do the things I like -- which was the point of this entire discussion.

Money = opportunity. All other things being equal, a child raised by the wealthier parent will have more opportunities.

DC

 

[Just Blue]

My measure of success or happiness has little to do with money. It has everything to do with my kids and my hobbies - granted money creates opportunity to do the things I like -- which was the point of this entire discussion.

Money = opportunity. All other things being equal, a child raised by the wealthier parent will have more opportunities.

DC

I disagree..My daughter went to school with many children who's parents were making hundreds of thousands of $$...The kids had EVERYTHING my daughter didn't...And yet she is doing better than those very privlidged are today. Sometimes we love what we fight for...and distain what is given to us.

Right now I love my left hand...as I can't use it for the next 2 months.

 

[single317dad]

Money = opportunity.

I just can't agree with this. I would have 15 years ago, but I've been in both positions and I don't see it. My son gets the same educational and social opportunities as my stepdaughter did, but we spend 10 times (or more) the quality time together. What are we missing? Abercrombie & Fitch? Red Lobster? Mercedes? iPhone? I've had those; they're meaningless, maybe even harmful.

We went fishing three afternoons this week, all on $3 worth of worms.

granted money creates opportunity to do the things I like

So, it's about you. I thought we were talking about opportunities for the kids.

 

[I'mTheFather]

One would hope that the privileged NCP would do everything in his/her power to insure that the children benefitted from that higher social class even though most hours are spent with the underprivileged CP.

You'd do that, right DC?



(This tangent is truly disturbing.)

 

[TigerD]

So, it's about you. I thought we were talking about opportunities for the kids.

Of course my definition of happiness is all about me. Don't be silly. Your attempts to turn personal attacks are in need of work. Practice more.

DC

 

[mmmagique]

I wonder whatever happened to the OP...

 

[Proserpina]

I wonder whatever happened to the OP...

Excellent point.

I know I contributed to the hijack...but I still think there are some crossed lines here.

Having more money doesn't make you a better parent, just as being broke doesn't make you a lousy parent. But the fact remains, we've decided that wealth can make the journey a hell of a lot more "comfortable" (for want of a better word) and we've opened up that Pandora's Box all by ourselves.

I honestly find it hard to understand why we seem so reluctant to acknowledge that.

 

[stealth2]

Of course having money can make things easier. But it is not - and should not - be the end all and be all. Should the parent who earns more "top" the parent who spends the majority of time with the kids, solely due to income? Where is the kid better off - with the parent who earns $100k+, then plants the kids with a sitter so s/he can go out and "play", or the parent who earns $27k, but spends their off time parenting the kids? The parent who has the nanny take the kid to the doctor or the parent who takes off work 'cause the kid is sick? No - really.

Yes, and I DO take this personally. For a variety of reasons, I make significantly less than my ex. But - WHO provided the cultural activities? And by that I mean taking them to museums, opera, philharmonic, ballet, other concerts, literature, etc.? ETA: zoos, psrks, the shore, etc.) No, not the "rich" parent. Maybe DC would like to explain to me why my kids are as comfortable in tux/gown as in tanks/cut-offs? Or can speak as intelligently on Nietzsche as on Harry Potter? Or Wagner vs the Dead? Just as examples. And yes, they are as comfortable with high-rollers as they are with Pineys. So DC can kiss my you-know-what.

ETA And WHO is paying for them to go to college (ok. one just graduated)? Hint: not the parent who told our youngest to not bother 'cause she wasn't really bright enough. Oh, note that he is a professor.