fathers and custody?

[SITLYNNE]

It's scheduled for a January publication, but I may be asking for an extension because honestly... I add more and more everyday. Started out with a 12 chapter outline, and now I'm up to 23 written chapters.

xKellyX, it may be cheaper on your pursestrings to be an NCP but the price you pay with your heart is immeasurable.

I completely agree. No amount of money can replace your children or the love you have for them.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Thank you! That is exactly what I was wondering. What things would a mom have to do to be considered unfit????? Would having never provided a steady home for a child, example.: living with boyfriends and friends , just anywhere she takes a notion. Also, only having the child a day or two when it is her week to have her.She is married but seperated and also has another baby by another guy and the paternal grandparents have that baby( father is not the guy she is still married to) until the mom straightens up and has a place of her own. She has now moved in with another guy. That makes at least 3 BF she has moved in with and numerous friends.The child is just 3 1/2 yrs old.

This is the problem with people answering questions without the slightest idea what the law states.

The fact is, you do NOT have to prove a mother (or, for that matter, a father) unfit to gain custody. There is NO set policy or legislative guideline for custody. The fact that more mothers have custody or are awarded custody is a matter strictly of history, NOT law.

You have as much right and possibility of gaining custody as the mother. Based on the Tennessee statutes of 'best interest of the child' and your ability to parent.

and THAT is why NO ONE can answer such a question. Because no one knows you, your situation (we only know one side) or the particular judge.

Now, if you have a LEGAL question ask it. But the way you asked your question there is NO ONE on earth who can give you a definate answer.

 

[SITLYNNE]

Up to $41,700 income total cost of raising a child $134,370

$41,700 to $70,200 income total cost of raising a child $184,320

more than $70,200 income total cost of raising a child $269,520

Or, if you're an ex-razorback with two female, pre-teen brats, total cost of raising children is $347,000 to-date.

Are you complaining about supporting your children? I hear resentment and that is a personal opinion to call your own children brats. You disgust me.

 

[SITLYNNE]

Now you're just being stupid.

Stupid. That is how you first answered me. Prove your statement. You posted that you have the revelant facts to backup your statement that only 10 of 17 million fathers have custody. You stated my answer was a personal opinion. I still have not seen you prove your statement. And I'm STUPID.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Are you complaining about supporting your children? I hear resentment and that is a personal opinion to call your own children brats. You disgust me.

There are plenty of people here who know how much I pay in child support each and every month. And that's on top of the $135,000 I have in trust for each daughter including another $50,000 in college fund CDs.

 

[SITLYNNE]

well i am a mom and my daughters father and i are together right now, if that means i cant have the link then thats ok

I'll let that up to MissouriGal. She PM'd it to me for a specific reason.

 

[xKellyx]

Are you complaining about supporting your children? I hear resentment and that is a personal opinion to call your own children brats. You disgust me.

I don't know about that, I was a pre-teen brat, and my mother told me so a few times when I acted as such lol

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Stupid. That is how you first answered me. Prove your statement. You posted that you have the revelant facts to backup your statement that only 10 of 17 million fathers have custody. You stated my answer was a personal opinion. I still have not seen you prove your statement. And I'm STUPID.

Yes, you are acting stupid. The EXACT post was

Today, 03:18 PM
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: "Harvey and Me"
Posts: 15,346

Quote:
Originally Posted by SITLYNNE
My own case included and quite a few other mothers who have posted here and elsewhere.

so about 10 out of 17 million. Now THAT makes an argument

I Never claimed there were only 10 out of 17 million. I made reference to your idiotic ramblings. Now either put a sock in it or continue to show your ignorance.

I really don't give a rat's behind.

 

[SITLYNNE]

This is the problem with people answering questions without the slightest idea what the law states.

The fact is, you do NOT have to prove a mother (or, for that matter, a father) unfit to gain custody. There is NO set policy or legislative guideline for custody. The fact that more mothers have custody or are awarded custody is a matter strictly of history, NOT law.

You have as much right and possibility of gaining custody as the mother. Based on the Tennessee statutes of 'best interest of the child' and your ability to parent.

and THAT is why NO ONE can answer such a question. Because no one knows you, your situation (we only know one side) or the particular judge.

Now, if you have a LEGAL question ask it. But the way you asked your question there is NO ONE on earth who can give you a definate answer.

Why didn't you just state that to begin with?

 

[SITLYNNE]

YOu're showing your ignorance again.

There are plenty of people here who know how much I pay in child support each and every month. And that's on top of the $135,000 I have in trust for each daughter including another $50,000 in college fund CDs.

now, want to keep making an ass of yourself?

I don't care how much you pay in support. That is your personal business and just explains why your answer was personal opinion and you still can't backup your original answer with a statistic.

 

[SITLYNNE]

so about 10 out of 17 million. Now THAT makes an argument

Oh. Now it was just a guess? Where did all your backup and statistics go? You were looking for an argument.

 

[SITLYNNE]

Are you totally devoid of common sense. I was refering to your inane argument on personal opinion basis.

I happen to know the relevant statistics. Do YOU?

Where are the revelant statistics?

 

[Whyte Noise]

Up to $41,700 income total cost of raising a child $134,370

$41,700 to $70,200 income total cost of raising a child $184,320

more than $70,200 income total cost of raising a child $269,520

Or, if you're an ex-razorback with two female, pre-teen brats, total cost of raising children is $347,000 to-date.

And see... this right here is the thing that baffles me the most.

I'm not an economics major, but I do know how to do math.

DFS, when awarding TANF (a welfare check) to a CP says you can get.. $250 a month cash for one child. (not an exact amount, just a nice round number I'm using as an example). This amount is what the state says it costs to raise a child per month, this is what the state "pays" you a month for one child.

So, tell me... if the state says it only costs $250 a month to raise a child and cover basic needs (food, clothing, housing)... why is it that we see the same state order CS awards for one child of $700 a month? $800 a month? $1500 a month? Remember... they've already made a stand that it only takes $250 a month to provide for 1 child when THEY are paying the CP. When it's another private individual though that needs to pay, that amount doubles, triples, quadruples, etc.

I don't buy the "maintaining the same standard of living before the divorce" argument either. How can that be applied to parents that were never married or lived together? There is no combined standard of living to maintain in those cases as they were never married nor lived together. Another reason I don't buy it, is that now... one person (the formerly married to the CP, NCP) has to maintain the same standard of living in 2 separate households on the same salary they were mantaining one on? It's not gonna happen unless you're highly paid. They have to maintain the standard of living for the children at the CP's house because they have physical custody of the children, and they have to try to keep it up at their home as well for when they have the children for visitation/parenting time. If they don't, the CP is then here asking how they can prove the NCP unfit because they don't have a "good" place to stay, they had to move into a one-bedroom apartment, they don't have beds for the kids and they're sleeping on the floor or in the bed with the CP... We've all seen it.

Do you see? It's a never-ending cycle. NCP's in the majority of cases (and I'm talking those NCP's that live at poverty level up to middle-income level) can't win for losing. Average, everyday people working at an average, everyday job making an average everyday wage, and having to support 2 households on one income. Most married people have to have both spouses working to make it today, yet an NCP is automatically expected to become a supermom or superdad and pay for not only 1 household but 2, since their children don't live with them full time. I'm also not talking about NCP's that have remarried, have stepchildren or additional biological children to support... I'm talking about a simple NCP who lives alone, only has the children of the CS order to support, and their own household expenses. Just because they divorced or whatever doesn't mean they don't need a place to live, food to eat, and clothes to wear just as much as their kids do. This applies even moreso to states that don't even take the CP's income into consideration and only bases CS of a flat percentage of the NCP's gross or net income.

Damn, that was a tangent... But my point was, why does the state say it takes $250 a month for a CP to raise a child when it's them paying TANF to the CP, yet say it costs double, triple, quadruple that when it's a parent that has to pay the CP?

 

[SITLYNNE]

And see... this right here is the thing that baffles me the most.

I'm not an economics major, but I do know how to do math.

DFS, when awarding TANF (a welfare check) to a CP says you can get.. $250 a month cash for one child. (not an exact amount, just a nice round number I'm using as an example). This amount is what the state says it costs to raise a child per month, this is what the state "pays" you a month for one child.

So, tell me... if the state says it only costs $250 a month to raise a child and cover basic needs (food, clothing, housing)... why is it that we see the same state order CS awards for one child of $700 a month? $800 a month? $1500 a month? Remember... they've already made a stand that it only takes $250 a month to provide for 1 child when THEY are paying the CP. When it's another private individual though that needs to pay, that amount doubles, triples, quadruples, etc.

I don't buy the "maintaining the same standard of living before the divorce" argument either. How can that be applied to parents that were never married or lived together? There is no combined standard of living to maintain in those cases as they were never married nor lived together. Another reason I don't buy it, is that now... one person (the formerly married to the CP, NCP) has to maintain the same standard of living in 2 separate households on the same salary they were mantaining one on? It's not gonna happen unless you're highly paid. They have to maintain the standard of living for the children at the CP's house because they have physical custody of the children, and they have to try to keep it up at their home as well for when they have the children for visitation/parenting time. If they don't, the CP is then here asking how they can prove the NCP unfit because they don't have a "good" place to stay, they had to move into a one-bedroom apartment, they don't have beds for the kids and they're sleeping on the floor or in the bed with the CP... We've all seen it.

Do you see? It's a never-ending cycle. NCP's in the majority of cases (and I'm talking those NCP's that live at poverty level up to middle-income level) can't win for losing. Average, everyday people working at an average, everyday job making an average everyday wage, and having to support 2 households on one income. Most married people have to have both spouses working to make it today, yet an NCP is automatically expected to become a supermom or superdad and pay for not only 1 household but 2, since their children don't live with them full time. I'm also not talking about NCP's that have remarried, have stepchildren or additional biological children to support... I'm talking about a simple NCP who lives alone, only has the children of the CS order to support, and their own household expenses. Just because they divorced or whatever doesn't mean they don't need a place to live, food to eat, and clothes to wear just as much as their kids do. This applies even moreso to states that don't even take the CP's income into consideration and only bases CS of a flat percentage of the NCP's gross or net income.

Damn, that was a tangent... But my point was, why does the state say it takes $250 a month for a CP to raise a child when it's them paying TANF to the CP, yet say it costs double, triple, quadruple that when it's a parent that has to pay the CP?

I agree. I inserted my income at present into our state child support calculator along with dads. The amount I pay is correct. Now, for sh*ts and giggles, I decided to give myself a raise of a few thousand per year. My support jumped about $100/month. Now, lets give dad a raise. Nothing. Same as before. By the way, I earn about $21,000/yr and dad about $38,000/yr. Now, I give myself a pay cut. Same. No change. Now lets give dad a really big raise, all the way to $200,000/year. I am still required to pay him the same. I give myself a raise to $200,000/year and was estimated to pay almost $5,000/month. How could it cost that much to support 2 boys/month? The system sucks and is wrong.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I actually agree with you on that on MG.

The statistics on cost based on income were actually from the Federal Reserve last year. And they are the most current I can find.

However, most states can't use them in structuring child support payments simply due to the fact that the vast majority of parents obligated to pay support, whether male or female, are at or slightly above the poverty level income figures.

And when you expand the income model out to $30,000 as the upper limit, that figure rises to 75% of all CS obligated parents.

Clearly, support is not a cureall. It is, and always was meant to be, a supplement only.