Child support

[Olgaline]

My friend pays £400 a month or 30% of his wages for his little girl who lives with her Mum in a council flat. None of that money makes it to his kid it is spent of going out drinking fags and whatever else a essex chav spends money on. This is where i get the big problem tbh he has taken her to court for primary custody but he keeps getting told the child is best off with its mother but i do not agree one parent sees it as a way to get a council flat and the other actually would put her before themselves.

He should file a complaint, it sounds as if he pays a
higher amount than the set standard ? in wich case, if it's prooven that the mother has
indeed inappropriately handled the money, The courts will either force her to instate some
of that money into locked acounts, or they'll reduce the amount.

Money for a child, is not ment as leasure money for the parrent with whome the child stays,
the money should go towards, education, living standarts "thats housing, bike, car, clothing,
roller skates. ect ect" vaccations "yes vaccation" and such, and ofcause to ensure that childs future.
"locked acounts, uni studie accounts, ect ect...


It often turns out though, that the parrents "that dont have the child living with them"
have to some extent, a warped idea of what it actually costs to have a child living with you, they think xx for diapers, xx for school
but that the tip of the iceberg! you have food, you have bigger appartment, you have afterschool activities,
you have ensurances, you have medicare, you have toys, you have ware and tear on everything, from carpets,
to wooden floors to sofa's you name it, you have toilet paper,
you have bus fare, cloths, shoes, socks, I could go on and on and on.....

for most common people, what you pay in child support, well.......
it just might cover half of school tuition.

but yes £400 pr. mounth sounds like alot.
especially if that 30% of his income,


btw, if he's unhappy, one option he has is to ask to provide soem of that support in actual goods...as cloths, shoes, ect...that way..well he knows
that the support goes strait to the one that needs it. He can also file to pay his end of any school tuition him self,
wich again will be subtracted from the amount his has to pay.

before she knows it,
all the money will be going strait to the kid, and not to her bank account.

 

[Chronictank]

If the father wants(with no unfit bull), it should be 50/50 time spent with the child.

Also the payments should be 50/50.

If the father doesn't get the same rights as the mother, he shouldn't pay equally for the upkeep either.

You can't have "payments to raise a child" and "no same rights to see child" and call it equal.

The child is still not staying with the father for the most part tho is he/she? at least not usually.
The only amendment i can see to your view of the law is that if the father's house is the primary residence for the child the situation should be reversed where the mother pays instead, but lets be honest if that were the case i am sure the judge would make an exception in the rare cases where it is necessary.
So the point still stands

As for visitation rights, this can be appealed in court if the father thought he was getting a bad deal out of it

 

[soze]

He has been to court a few times about it but because he has a criminal record so even though that was 8 years ago every time they go to court he is called unfit.

I'm not sure what happens with that money but it is always him that buys her new clothes car seats ect even though he pays that much to the mother.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The child is still not staying with the father for the most part tho is he/she? at least not usually.
The only amendment i can see to your view of the law is that if the father's house is the primary residence for the child the situation should be reversed where the mother pays instead, but lets be honest if that were the case i am sure the judge would make an exception in the rare cases where it is necessary.
So the point still stands

Why should the residence be a part of the equation?

If the father pays 50% of the childs costs, then 50% is paid.

In those cases where the kid lives with the father, the court CAN say that the mother needs to pay, but if you check around the net, you'll notice how biased that is. Women don't get enforecd and don't have to pay in equal amounts compared to men.

You're talking like it's somehow a miracle that there's a deadbeat mother, i'd adjusts that viewset.

And for some reason my previous reply went before Olgas post(that i quoted) and to the earlier page

 

[Chronictank]

Why should the residence be a part of the equation?

If the father pays 50% of the childs costs, then 50% is paid.

In those cases where the kid lives with the father, the court CAN say that the mother needs to pay, but if you check around the net, you'll notice how biased that is. Women don't get enforecd and don't have to pay in equal amounts compared to men.

You're talking like it's somehow a miracle that there's a deadbeat mother, i'd adjusts that viewset.

And for some reason my previous reply went before Olgas post(that i quoted) and to the earlier page

Again, mother is 'employed' as a home maker/child minder (and incidentally a very cheap one), hence the larger payment
That is why the residence is important, regardless how many times the father visits the child is still primarily being looked after at one location so that is where the bulk of the expense should be paid for

 

[Olgaline]

Vacations(for example) are not necessary costs and should be agreed upon by both parents and reciepts etc should be used to bill the father.

Same with rollerskates etc.

All these should be agree upon and paid 50/50, THAT is fair.

It's never 50/50
the parrent that has child living with them, will always be one to bare the highest finacial burden. "american and warped celeb cases not included"

The mother saying "Oh he needs to go to karate" or "he needs to go to the bahamas" is NOT a necessary thing and it's not up to the mother to choose.

yes it is,
afterschool activities are viewed as nessersary and fair financial burdens
and are deemed an important part of any childs well beeing, and genaral welfare. If the family is going to the bahamas, and your child is going, you have the pleasure of sponsering some of that trip, thats jsut the way it is.

I do see that you want to make it out that you pay an added extra amount
for the trip. that will never be the case, but as your paying child support, then yes your in someway paying for the trip, the law dose not specify where the vacction goes to, only that your child hase a right to the same benifits that befall other children of the same age and social status. "or something in that general region"

 

[old.Tohtori]

Again, mother is 'employed' as a home maker/child minder (and incidentally a very cheap one), hence the larger payment
That is why the residence is important, regardless how many times the father visits the child is still primarily being looked after at one location so that is where the bulk of the expense should be paid for

And there you're assuming the kid doesn't get 50% with the father.

As said; equality.

If the kid lives 80% of the time at the mother, the father shouldn't pay 50% because he doesn't receive the same benefits as the mother from having a kid.

It's never 50/50
the parrent that has child living with them, will always be one to bare the highest finacial burden. "american and warped celeb cases not included

Didn't i say costs should go 50/50? Hmm?

yes it is,
afterschool activities are viewed as nessersary and fair financial burdens
and are deemed an important part of any childs well beeing, and genaral welfare. If the family is going to the bahamas, and your child is going, you have the pleasure of sponsering some of that trip, thats jsut the way it is.

I do see that you want to make it out that you pay an added extra amount
for the trip. that will never be the case, but as your paying child support, then yes your in someway paying for the trip, the law dose not specify where the vacction goes to, only that your child hase a right to the same benifits that befall other children of the same age and social status. "or something in that general region"

The kids who go to bahamas, get all the toys they want and get to go to all the classes they want, have two parents who decide on those things.

So why shouldn't the father, who is paying 50%, be included in these decicions?

Kids are not entitled to same privbilages as other kids, they are entitled to food, shealter, care and education. Vacations and toys are extra, and as such, they should be equally decided on by both paying parents.

BUT...let's turn the table shall we?

Why shoudln't the father get 50% of the kids time?

 

[Olgaline]

If the kid lives 80% of the time at the mother, the father shouldn't pay 50% because he doesn't receive the same benefits as the mother from having a kid.

he should be more concerned with his childs welfare than how much
he benifits.

economical support and spent time are two very different things,

if you think xx dollers should = xx amount of time with your child then
your absolutly correct, then we have no more further to discuss.
becuase then, in all modsety I think your an Idiot.
if in fact thats your claim. "I seriously hope not"
a Father should look to support his child as best he can,
He should also strive to spend as much time as possible with that child.

but he should never! draw = between economical support, and time spent.
but your right, it's a common problem, and sadly seen far too often.

 

[old.Tohtori]

he should be more concerned with his childs welfare than how much
he benifits.

economical support and spent time are two very different things,

if you think xx dollers should = xx amount of time with your child then
your absolutly correct, then we have no more further to discuss.
becuase then, in all modsety I think your an Idiot.
if in fact thats your claim. "I seriously hope not"
a Father should look to support his child as best he can,
He should also strive to spend as much time as possible with that child.

but he should never! draw = between economical support, and time spent.
but your right, it's a common problem, and sadly seen far too often.

IF a father cares for a kid, then he should have the RIGHT to equal time with the kid. That's all i've said.

Equal pay = equal rights.

At the moment, things are not so.

If he chooses to use those rights or not, different story, but if he's expected to care for the wellbeing of the child, he should also be given equal time and right to decicions as the mother.

Economical support does not equal time spent, but childs welfare DOES equal to time spent.

It's all very biased towards the mother, as this thread shows, and as such it's outdated as f*ck.

Two to tango afterall, right?

 

[Olgaline]

IF a father cares for a kid, then he should have the RIGHT to equal time with the kid. That's all i've said.

Again, it's not about the parrents, it's about the child.
who says equal time is whats best for that child, one
week here, one week there, hell glad i didnt have to live with that.

Equal pay = equal rights.

thats given to you at the birth of your child,
money has no influence on that, and neither should it.
you dont get to buy rights.


it's all about the child.
understand that, and you'll understand what i'm telling you.

I' done.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Again, it's not about the parrents, it's about the child.
who says equal time is whats best for that child, one
week here, one week there, hell glad i didnt have to live with that.

thats given to you at the birth of your child,
money has no influence on that, and neither should it.
you dont get to buy rights.

it's all about the child.
understand that, and you'll understand what i'm telling you.

I' done.

No one is saying anything about buying rights, i'm saying the father should HAVE the rights to equal time.

If the kid spent 50% of his time with the father, the costs would also go equally automatically.

You do NOT get equal rights to a kid, as shown by your own numbers, upon birth.

If it was all about the child, then it would be a-ok, but current systems are not.

- The fathers don't pay 50%.
- The fathers don't get 50%.

The child needs both parents in a utopia growth enviroment, and with the system of visitation rights, it's not so.

It might be all about suporting the child, but if the father doesn't want anything to do with the kid, he shouldn't pay for extra stuff besides food, shealter, clothing etc essentials.

FYI; there's no understanding problem here, i just don't agree with you.

 

[old.Tohtori]

But to return to the original post by Sparx; if the woman makes it 100% clear you can't see the kid, EVER, you shouldn't pay either.

You're removed from the kids life, so you should be removed.

 

[Olgaline]

But to return to the original post by Sparx; if the woman makes it 100% clear you can't see the kid, EVER, you shouldn't pay either.

You're removed from the kids life, so you should be removed.

she cant. shezem not having taht privalige..nop nop!
woopiie dooodles!

well at least not in this country.

 

[CorNokZ]

No matter what, Everz still has to pay

 

[Olgaline]

Whales an'da dolfiinz masta pay!!

 

[old.Tohtori]

she cant. shezem not having taht privalige..nop nop!
woopiie dooodles!

well at least not in this country.

Hypothetical or not then, answer we can agree on no?

We're actually on the same side, always have been, just not agreeing on HOW things should be done

 

[Olgaline]

we agree to disagree on issues discussed.

I will always look at any issue from the childs perspective.
if a 50/50 through and through benifits the child then I have no problem with it.

if a different senario is whats best for that child, not matter the set up then, thats the option i support.

when it comes to children, and the care taking of children, the parrents can FO.

 

[old.Tohtori]

when it comes to children, and the caretaling of children, the parrents can FO.

So you support taking all kids from all parents and locking them in government warehouses?

I agree!

 

[soze]

she cant. shezem not having taht privalige..nop nop!
woopiie dooodles!

well at least not in this country.

Actually it is well within her power if a woman goes to court and says you hit her your visitation will go away very quickly. No matter how much equality people rattle on about it would be a very drastic situation drug addiction ect before the court takes custody away from a woman. My uncle has a kid from his first marriage she had a affair they got a divorce he is allowed one visit a fortnight and thats because he lost his temper when she filed for sole custody with no reason.

 

[Olgaline]

yes,
that would work.

exept for my children ofc.

and the offspring of sparx's utopian spream bank

 

[Olgaline]

Actually it is well within her power if a woman goes to court and says you hit her your visitation will go away very quickly. No matter how much equality people rattle on about it would be a very drastic situation drug addiction ect before the court takes custody away from a woman. .

burdan of proof would ley with her.
such a claim is a very seriouse claim, and if shown to be falls,
she will not only loose the child, she'll be put in jail.


I would strongly urge any parrent not to make such a claim unless it's true.

My uncle has a kid from his first marriage she had a affair they got a divorce he is allowed one visit a fortnight and thats because he lost his temper when she filed for sole custody with no reason.

are you absolutly sure thats the only reason ? or part of the reason

 

[old.Tohtori]

yes,
that would work.

exept for my children ofc.

and the offspring of sparx's utopian spream bank

Mind me asking what makes your child immune to the mother taking it?

 

[Olgaline]

nope, quite simple.

if we were to split,
I hold the better cards,

she has social issues f.exp the dad of her son, she's out of work,
I earn more money, and am softer tempered. and can provide better social conditions and structure to her life. and give her the things she needs "economy"


oh and the danish system is so, scared of stepping on any fathers foot these days that, well
I'd need to beat the kid not to get her.

 

[old.Tohtori]

nope, quite simple.

if we were to split,
I hold the better cards,

she has social issues f.exp the dad of her son, she's out of work
I earn more money, and am softer tempered. and can provide better social conditions and structure to her life. and give her the things she needs "economy"

But it is both of your child?

More money doesn't tip the scale yet and the court might very well take the other kid into ocnsideration as an "emotional tie" they don't want to break.

MEntal issues only count if they are present, that's for a psych to see.

I wouldn't lul into a 100% safety on that as you'll fall harder if you think that.

 

[soze]

burdan of proof would ley with her.
such a claim is a very seriouse claim, and if shown to be falls,
she will not only loose the child, she'll be put in jail.

I would strongly urge any parrent not to make such a claim unless it's true.

are you absolutly sure thats the only reason ? or part of the reason

As sure as i can be but my Mum was at the hearing where they were supposed to be filing for joint custody but her representation all of a sudden said sole custody. Her reason was her new man could provide a better standard of life.

I know its not easy but if a woman claims shes beaten but has no proof i still think a judge would let it play in their decision.

 

[CorNokZ]

YouTube- Baby

 

[old.Tohtori]

CorNokZ that's all the internet peeps who claim "well we are different parents"

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

Condom breaks >> Get morning after pill just to be sure.

No abortion, no freaky stuff.

Also, I'm pretty much with the group saying that a guy shouldn't be forced to pay if he doesn't want to have anything to do with the kid, provided he didn't go in unprotected ofcourse, and should the rubber snap, he'd take the girl to the apothecary to get an emergency contraception..

In my book you can't have someone pay for something they lack any voice in.

 

[Fafnir]

Condom breaks >> Get morning after pill just to be sure.

That pill is not 100% either. No meds are 100% for all. Since there are so many variations in our body chemistry.

 

[Olgaline]

off with her head!

thats 100% sure fire way.
if you didnt plan to have babies with her anyway..... ?

well ?