No she isn't paying me - even if she did get a job I wouldn't take her money. We've been apart since Jan '06 and she is still living off other people - thats her way.

Long story short - I have custody now, but there was a period of time where she had it and I was paying support to her. The time I paid child support to her - between the physical custody change and the paperwork getting processed was several months. In THAT time I was required by law to pay support to her even though I physically had the kids. Once the paperwork was completed, I had obviously overpaid my child support obligation. Now I have a very large credit that I cannot get back for Dom Rel, nor can I now apply it towards her alimony.

Yesman, the friends of mine who were shafted by the CSA were men. Basically, the idea of the CSA when it originally set up was that it would force 'deadbeat' dads to pay for their kids...problem is, mums were told they couldn't claim benefits if they refuse to say who the dad was...so many of them say they don't know. WE end up in a situation where the dads that the CSA have anything to do with are actually the dads who want to pay fo rtheir kids...but instead of coming up with an arrangents themselves with their partners (particularly if the partner is unemployed) they end up getting stung by the CSA for a massive proportion of their income. Totally unfair.

Dang, alimony AND CS arrears? Where do I sign up?

I'm not even sure how to respond to your sexist remark........I'll just let that go......

I'm just really curious about where you are getting the other statement from. I'll need the quote.

Yea....here is a good reason why. Most men are trying to be irrelevant and not present when someone is pregnant. Anecdote: take it how you would like...
I saw this guy in a planned parenthood with his partner. I'm pretty sure she was there to abort. He got on his cell phone and started talking his partying drug-addicted gangster crap loudly right there in the lobby at 9:00 in the morning. The guy was drunk or high already and he was an older guy......Does anyone want to tell me that he should have the final say in what happens to a fetus? Or can we let her manage like he was obviously at least that smart to do?

Gee...I'm sure he gives all of this a lot of thought-that's after he does an eight ball and drinks a 40oz in between xbox games. Just because some of you men on here are more responsible than most.....you act like most men give this stuff a thought outside of how inconvenient the situation is. Not really. Call me a sexist or whatever....I don't care. Most men out there avoid even talking about this stuff until a woman "inconveniences" them by becoming pregnant. Their attitude: do whatever...but I hope you choose to do the thing that is going to take the least from me. A lot of times women get to see their partner's true colors when they become pregnant. It's called the asshole factor. She has to say to herself-Oh- I never would have had sex with you if I knew you were going to turn into a completely irresponsible evasive piece of dung......That said.....Consider that injustice.

Take a pregnancy and add a man. Recipe for an instant asshole. Men are just there to make it harder than it has to be which is why this is up for debate in the first place.

*Disclaimer* I am talking about a lot of men.......not all of them... so put your fists down.

never had a woman complain about it being TOO hard before.

I believe it's more along the lines of...you choose how you express and deal with your emotional reaction to external forces. Rage, rant, deny, suppress, acknowledge, explore, blame, attack, cry, self-pity, etc.

Big question: was the money already disbursed to her, or is it sitting in the Domestic Relations coffers?

My husband was getting screwed by a situation just like that at one point--his employer had accidentally overdrawn the garnishment, and the domestic relations office would neither disburse the money to her as a credit for the next month or give it back. They insisted that they would simply hold onto the money until he (inevitably, was the implication) became behind on his payments, and then disburse it to her as a regular payment that he had missed (while still assessing him for arrears.) Worst case scenario, they assured him, he would get the money back in about 16 years when the child support obligation ended.

He called them every single day and harassed them until eventually they wrote him a check for the overage. If the money is physically in their hands and not hers, they can give it back if they want to.

Are you going to try to convince me that he was different before she slept with him? The guy's an ass and has probably been an ass his entire life. Even if he pulled a nice guy routine, why was she fooled by a guy with the intelligence of a fish? She was dumb enough to sleep with a real prick and I hope she takes my previous advice and seeks out a normal, responsible guy (there are just as many as responsible women out there).

No, I'm sorry. I don't know if you work in a women's crisis center or some other occupation which has isolated you from sane men, but trust me you're espousing an obviously skewed viewpoint of men.

Cite.

I have stated over and over and over and over that this would be rare.
You won't read and have shown this to be true constantly.
Just stop replying to my until you actually read my posts please.

She already got the money. At this point I believe my only recourse is to sue her for it. That has some additional implications that I would rather not have happen. For one she plays the victim VERY WELL and would play it off on the kids as "Daddy is attacking me ....see how mean he really is.... blah blah blah." I don't want my kids getting caught up in anymore of her insanity.

Boy that's another thread huh?
She meets this drunk guy at a party. Stays drunk with him for a month, party to bar to party, ends up moved-in with him and "in love".
Suddenly she's tha' "victim" because he is a drunk with no relationship skills?
Poor her! LOL!!!

Often...abusive, manipulative, lying, no-good asses can be quite charming and personable when they want to. And they usually want to when trying to con someone into bed and/or marriage. I've known people to carry the facade for several years, if that's what it takes.

An insecure person, with low boundaries and low self esteem can easily fall for such nonsense because they buy into the bullshit. They excuse the glaring faults (lack of stability, anger issues, over controlling, deceptions) by saying they're not perfect either or by believing they are "the one" who will finally change this irresponsible, bad boy/girl into a good person. They find out it's never going to happen when they're good and trapped...maybe married (for better or worse), baby on the way or there, cut off from all sources of support and what little self esteem they had, completely demolished.

I strenously object to the generalization that any woman who gets pregnant unexpectedly is a slut, a party animal, or knew right up front that the person she was with was (or could be) an asshole.

I've also found that some of the seemingly nicest people can turn into completely amoral, vindictive, and cruel individuals, given the right trigger. You just never know until you're on the opposing side in a battle.

I strenously object to the generalization that any woman who gets pregnant unexpectedly is a slut, a party animal.
I don't think anyone in here made that characherization of women who get pregnant.
As far as the party animal statement... if he/she partied a lot, they knew.

That someone thought they could change someone is never an excuse to take a risk. In fact, it is sneaky and immoral.

During my conversation with the senior official I could get to at Domestic Relations, whom shall remain nameless, he admitted that this was a very common situation for which "the system" has no answer. Shit, if it would help I'd donate my overpayment to a deserving mother/family.

{sidenote}Of course my money is already gone and my ex, who is getting "spiritually united" with a guy she's known less than a year already used it as a downpayment on a house. If she got married for real I wouldn't have to pay alimony either. Isn't that nice - I get to pay alimony for another three years instead of putting that money towards the children. Again a situation for which the system has no answer. {sidenote}:mad:

Sorry dude.
My family once helped a guy put all of his income, even as it came in and property(except $10 a week) in his kid's name when he found out that his wife was cheating on him.
Still proud of that.

Bizarre that she gets alimony off you if youhave the kids.

I know the system is fucked. Both here and over there. Mostly things stay out of the CSA unless the mother is claiming benefits of some kind, or if one or the other party ask fo rthem to be involved (I think is how it works). Usually things are decided through the courts instead. But even though they are usually fairer they still aren't entirely fair.

For example, I have a friend, D, who continues to pay alimony to his ex-wife as his contribution to the costs of raising his son and also as a recognition of the time she took out from her career to be a full time mum. He has done so since they first started divorce proceedings nearly 10 years ago, throughout the four years of strung out divorce and on through the five years since that was finalised. Kid's now just turned 17.

On the surface of it that sounds quite fair. Except that she earns significantly more than he does, because she's a fairly senior teacher (she may even be a headteacher, I'm not sure) whilst his social work payscale froze for several years because he went into union work. So, whilst he is earning less, driving a shit little car and going into debt in order to buy a season ticket for their team for him and his son, she's living a much easier life, having, as far as I can tell, been barely inconvenienced in her career by the two or three years she spent at home.

At the same time, I had a colleague a couple of years back whose abusive ex managed to secure visitation rights to the children and she had to wave them off in the car twice a week with a man she couldn't really trust with their safety. Why did the court not take her fears seriously? Because she was a housewife and he was a businessman, imo.

The truth is it's very difficult to get anything like a fair and amicable settlement unless both parties are trying to come to such a thing. The problem with an adversarial system is that it presupposes a winner and a loser.

thanks rk, but it is more than ok - I know that I am doing the right, just and morally correct thing in this situation - I have faith that all will work out in the end. It usually does.

Yeah Dana - its a shame that a system had to be designed so that a friggin father is compelled to take care of his own kids. I cannot fathom that level of irrisponsibility - even though I see it everytime I go to the domestic relations office.

The kids were adults.

There is an important quote in here about excusing his actions as "temper" or "maleness" and "taming/civilizing him to find the prince within being our (females) job".
Hmmmmmm?

In fairness to men, they don't have a monopoly on irresponsibility. I think it's just that actually carrying the child kind of concentrates the female's mind a little to the new responsibility. We (females) have the help of a bunch of very powerful hormones which guide the maternal instincts, unless you happen to be one of those poor lasses who don't bond with their baby.

Hormones and a corrupt legal system.

What has a corrupt legal system got to do with a woman wanting to take care of her baby?

As already stated, if a man wants to "abort" his responsibilities to an unwanted situation he should be allowed to... no no problem.
It's all the mother's choice now, she is in COMPLETE control and that is the way it is supposed to be, right?
The man is just the sperm donor.

And you still haven't. I said harder than it has to be.


I just got that 10 minutes later...

The corrupt legal system decides who must support her efforts, whether they want to or not.

yes indeed. But the point that Yesman had raised was the fact that he has encountered a lot of men who don't want to step up and he seemed disgusted that enough men don't want to support their children that it requires a whole department to deal with it. My point was merely that it would be unfair to judge men harshly compared to women on this, given that women get a bunch of hormonal help when the pregnancy starts.

Fair point.

har...
when it comes to me or elspode, assume it comes from the direction of the gutter first....

Or moreso - the department that is supposed to be handling and manging the support cases gets completely overwhelmed dealing with these losers to the point that NOTHING seems to get done. There are 4 caseworkers available at 8:00 am and there are at least 30 -40 people waiting in the lobby to see them, with more literally pouring in as the day goes on. These caseworkers seem to be trying their best, but the workload they face is staggering and the mental grind they must entail over days, weeks and months is staggering.

Virtually all of the people there are women, most with young children, and they are all there for the same reason - to get money from someone else - be it the system or an accused "deadbeat dad."

When in court I have seen the guys with their ghetto attire complete with $100+ sneakers blinging with decorative rings, necklaces and cellphones. They sit there disrespectfully slouched in front of the court with literally the same excuses time after time. "Yeah I'll pay this much more a month or that much next time or I ain't got no more money."

They have money for the clothes and the jewelry and the cellphones, yet nothing left for their children? Yeah I get why things are so screwed up with this system - This scum is reproducing much faster and in larger numbers than respectful people who honor their commitments.

Whats the answer???

BTW, I am making a point... I don't agree with this at all, once two people make a baby it is their job to care for it.

Why are these women carrying kids to term that they can't pay for who have been fathered by deadbeats? 3/4 of the entire point of legal abortion is avoiding this shit.:headshake

Because they can't afford to pay for abortions, maybe?

Or they have moral objections to abortion...

The other side to this, 9th, is that believing in the right for a woman to choose abortion, you must also believe in the right of the woman to choose to carry that child to term, no matter if anyone thinks it's irresponsible for any reason, no matter if she conjugated with a low-life, no matter any social issues anyone other than that woman has.

Yes, but she should also be prepared to take the responsibility for her decision, which may include the lack of the father.

Absolutely...but I'm saying that it isn't for Joe Schmo on the street to say she should have aborted. Believing in choice is believing in choice. You can't have it both ways.

Well said.

Yes I can't. I mean no I can. ;)

I have to say that the Child Support Agency is good for my children. Their father is very bad at stepping up to his responsibility. Every year when they do the assessment to see what he should pay, he quits his job then tells them that he can't pay because he doesn't have a job. They then say he only has to pay the minimum which is about $27/month. The unfortunate thing for him is that they're now going back to all the old records and have caluculated a huge debt for him.

Personally, I don't care if he pays or not, other than the fact that on the one hand he claims to love his kids, but on the other, he's quite happy to let someone else pay all their every day expenses.

I didn't think he was a deadbeat when I met him. I didn't think he was a deadbeat when we fell pregnant. In fact, it wasn't till I was 7 months pregnant and I found out he'd been having an affair with someone else and then quit his job that I had the first realization. We tried to work it out. Had our second son, but I found out that he was still up to his same tricks and they just got worse.

Sometimes you just don't know what people are going to do, no matter how well you think you know them. Knowing what I know now, I would never have allowed myself to fall pregnant to him, but it's amazing how hindsight gives you 20 20 vision.

Another issue is that male or female, the people with the worst impulse control and planning skills are the ones who "forget" the birth control or use less reliable methods.
These are also likely to be the people who are least capable of adequately caring for the new entity they've created. Thus, the cycle continues

It's not the act of choosing that's important, here or really in anything else. It's the opportunity to take the actions necessary to secure the best possible outcome. Abortion is simply a convenience, not something sacred. Also, the language about having to affirm a womans choice by telling her she's doing the right thing no matter what is bullshit. For that choice I expect her to know her own abilities and situation and act accordingly. There's no checklist for this, some women may be able to care for a child in circumstances where others crumble, but she has 9 months to figure that out. Situations that change after birth are one thing, but if she has the baby knowing full well that she can't care for it properly then she's the one who's mocking her right to choose.

I disagree. A choice is just that, a choice. Too many people think that pro-choice means you can choose to abort. Not believing that it also includes the right to choose to carry to term is short-sighted, and negates the whole right to choose.

Ahh, if everyone knew themselves so well, if these choices were easy. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way.

Absolutely.

The other thing is that we have complete cultures of women now believing that having the baby is more important than having the father, or any father of any of their 4 kids from different fathers, not being involved and that has completely acceptable.

Wait.... if you are pro-choice, it's not MANDATORY to have an abortion, if you get pregnant? Wow, what a concept! :D

Heeeheeee, Spexx! :lol:

"Complete Cultures of Women?" Weird.

Last I heard the baby is more important. Or is that just me?

I'm beginning to believe that some people around here only believe in a woman's right to be blamed for any occurence. As long as it is conveniently applied to everything that is unholy.

What a smack in the face Merc....A lot of women are abandoned or have to leave with their kids because of violence....and you accuse them of making a poor choices. This is really insulting Merc.
:headshake

That is not what I read in his post - I think he meant that there are women who think of the man as no more than a sperm donor. In some cases, I don't know how many, he is absolutely right. It is far more "socially acceptable" for an unmarried woman to have a child or children, than it used to be.

I suspect, though I have no figures for it, that the majority of single mums are not single mums because they chose that path. However, the fact that it is socially acceptable for women to bring up a child alone does somewhat free women from the constraints of living in a world where they will have moral opprobrium heaped upon them if they happen to get unlucky in bed. The fact that a small minority of women actually choose not to co-parent doesn't outweigh that for me.

I will admit, that a few years ago when I was giving serious consideration to whether or not I want children at some point, I did think that I would only really want to do that if I could be a single parent. Why? Because most men I know, whilst lovely and reasonable much of the time, have a tendency to be a little overbearing at times. What is vocalised as a fifty-fifty decision making process, for instance, actually means he gets final veto ( a little like rk's view on abortion). I had a hard enough time not physically killing my ex when we were rearing a puppy. If there had been a child in the mix I would be in jail by now :P

I never said a majority - I certainly don't think its anywhere near that. I'm sorry - I was just trying to interpret what I thought he was saying. I can think of a couple examples though - One was a local newswoman who wanted a child and she got artificially insemenated. Can't think of her name though - Lisa something - maybe? whatever.

Yesman-I was talking to the person that said "Complete Cultures of Women". I know what he meant...I don't need it explained. I think he just needed a reminder of how things got to be that way.

And what Dana is saying is the reason I am never going to have children with my husband. God love 'im. The second he talked to me that way in front of my kid.......well, it just wouldn't work out lets say....
But we didn't marry with kids in mind anyway. I don't mind not having one at all. I chose my husband....for good and bad. But lets face it...the great man that he is....he's just not cut out for it and he's not any less of a person for that. We just have a real view of our limitations. I would be too protective and could see myself pouncing on him like an enraged tiger. Not good. And he would try to constantly act as if I was stupid and his word was golden.....and he mentioned the other night in our conversation about it that his controlling behaviors would just get worse. And I believe him. Nothing wrong with not being cut out for being a parent. We may be cut out for fine genetic reproductions...but not parents. We are being realisitic. We think we would have a fine kid...it's just sad that we both have personality issues resulting from our family environments that would screw up everything and quickly. I think we are better people for not trusting each other to do this and not do it with each other. Maybe I could do it if I married someone who didn't act like twat sometimes...but I didn't. I don't even want one that bad..If I did we would be getting a divorce. But I chose that peckerhead first. :)

The ideal situation would be for us both to change and have a kid.....but lets see the reality of that actually happening?

There are real reasons some women don't want a guy around and some guys if they are honest, like my husband can say, "hey I am awesome", but I might be a terrible father......but most women never got the choice.

How about everybody keeping a contract in their wallet vis a vis parental rights. Have the bartender witness it and you're good to go.

EXACTLY!!

More and more I've been switching to the mindset that we should be teaching kids the virtues of abortion from a very young age. Abortion is about keeping unplanned pregnancies down, right? I'm envisioning a system where 7-8yo boys and girls are taught that it's very good thing to have an abortion, good or better then having a kid. Daemonize people who selfishly force others to care for their kids. Lots of indoctrinating necessary, but hey, not like that's been a problem until now. Sounds like something you could write a book about...
It'd be every uber-liberal's dream come true from what I've learned, and I wouldn't have to pay for some little snot's daycare. Win-win.

Abortions are scary? Never heard that crop up in health-ed.:right:

I agree. People should discuss what could happen before sex. But, once you do, you own those actions.
I was one of the few young men that did not just sleep with anyone. I never got it.

Are you saying you don't believe it, because they didn't tell you that in health-ed? Or do you mean that health-ed is lacking, because they don't tell the whole story? :rolleyes:

I'm saying that health-ed failed to insert that little detail into the curriculum, I'll never be able to say if it's scary or not though.:p Scary is also kind of a personal assessment, most likely some women find it scary, others don't.

Hey look...I'm holding back for once. I hope I've made someone here proud today. Look....I did not vomit a fact, anecdote, or slew of curse words.
I really do think you guys are helping with some ordinary knee-jerk reactions.
I even have the time right now to write a very long response to each of you. Wow. Just wow.
Ok now back to what you were doing.
:)

My take: the unfortunate thing is that, TYPICALLY, the people who want to prevent a woman from making her own choice are the same people who don't want their kids to learn how to prevent unwanted pregnancy in school. Yet they also don't teach them, themselves.

So what you have is kids who want to have sex, don't know how to prevent pregnancy, yet you don't want them to be able fix the problem after the fact, then they are ostracized for getting pregnant or having a child out of wedlock (bad girl), or they get into a marriage that nobody really wanted, often ending up a divorced, single parent. Seems like they get screwed all the way around.