Discuss srs ?

So what is the difference?

This. What u talkin' about opie?

You are retarded. They are your children. You should contribute to the cost of raising,housing and feeding them.

I think he is saying Child support should be required if the father just bounces, but not if it is simply a failed relationship but still involved.

Either way, if one person has more custody than the other, they should receive compensation.

oh yeah, and op is a ******* and prolly gettin raped for child support.

its a grey area because it shouldnt be obligatory on you if its a failed relationship, but if youre in a position where you say, it shouldnt be obligatory on me, then youre a dead beat prick

Yes but how exactly would it be defined, what classifies as a father just bouncing or a relationship failing? Good fuken luck proving any of this loosey goosey nonsense in court

OP most likely just wants to creampie women and leave them to raise his kid without paying anything. *******

Child support should never be required only optional.

I have no kids

I’m simply asking a question phhagort

Amounts should be reduced, less incentive to divorce or get knocked up. When I got divorced 18 years ago I paid $700 a month with a 40k salary.

OP worded it like a moron and miscers per the usual, interpreted as morons themselves.

OBVIOUSLY OP meant negligent fathers versus failed relationships with the child having no bearing on the relationship's failure.

My main problem with the current laws is the spouse is able to spend the money I give here for my kids on things such as liquor cigarettes or anything else not going directly towards the children. Not divorced btw just seen a lot of girlfriends doing this to their baby daddys

ummm so exactly what I just fukking said???

It’s still this bad in Texas.

This. I don't give a chit why you're not around. Your kids = you pay to raise them.

That.


Ufknwotm8?

If the man can provide proof (somehow) that he tried to make the relationship work and she wants out, she forfeits alimony and child support. We'll take joint custody.

I do agree there needs to be some oversight here.

She can't forfeit child support -- that belongs to the child.

Child support makes no sense at all.

Brb takes a village to raise a child. So leave me out of it.

Brb i cant choose to abort the kid so i should be able to choose not to support it.

Brb pay money to mom and she spends it on clothes for herself.

Brb its uncapped at a percentage of your income when it costs 100$ a month MAX to feed a kid beans and keep it alive.

Brb goes to 18 but kid can work legally much sooner.




Ill work under the table or move out of the country before i pay child support.

Right, but custody and child support payments are two different things. The child may be more than 50% reliant on the father for finances irrespective of joint custody.

I think we're over simplifying this a bit here. I can understand some of these replies because you're Fathers.

For the sake of clarity let me see if I'm catching OP's meaning right.


This may get me some hate here, but I think child support can make some mothers irresponsible with their funds. Why do I say this? I know several young women, ONE in particular I used to work with. She could be working towards a better job outside of a coffee shop, BUT she's gettin' dat dere money from her old man. So why bother? Meanwhile she moves into an apartment she can barely afford, wreaks her car, and cycles through different young men "providing" for them, so they can provide for her. She wouldn't be so reckless and impulsive if she knew her funds were limited. She was going to go to nursing school but changed her mind because she didn't need too. In between child support, her beta providers, and her wagecuck income, she feels she can make it just fine, and she is. I know her case isn't unique an there are plenty of other young mother taking the same path.

I'm not saying this makes anyone a bad mother, but deliberately choosing to put in less effort to secure income because you've got someone else doing it is lazy.

True it is a Fathers role to provide, BUT I just mentioned a young mother taking advantage of the extra money she has flowing in. I worked with a guy at FedEx that was paying $1600 monthly for child support. He had to pick up a second job because it was cleaning him out. His wife? Has a new man and is still receiving money. Meanwhile the guy at FedEx still tries to lead his daughters in the right direction and be a loving father. I could tell he was bitter because his wife screwed him pretty bad, but he stayed positive, continued to work toward welding school, AND remained present in his daughter life.

It isn't always a case of a Dead Beat Dad and those who see it that way should get off their high horse. No hate to any of the misc fathers here, but I feel the need to be candid here.

Actually, I think she sounds like a pretty terrible mother.

Don't get me wrong, it's very much the mother's responsibility -- just as it is the father's responsibility -- to raise and pay for their children. Mothers capable of paying their share should be forced to do so.

My main concern is that the child would face poverty absent compulsory payments (by both parents if they can, and in any event, by at least one parent). That's terrible for the child, and to the extent that the state picks up the tab, it presents a moral hazard problem.

No, but I definitely think there needs to be a method for full accountability and justification for any expense over food, clothing and increased home expenses that should be a standard rate per kid.

If you and your ex split custody 50/50 who pays support?

Usually people can have their lawyers find out/ask for proof on what their funds is being spent on. Unfortunately no judge will ever over rule the initials payments unless its to increase it lmao.


Also joint custody doesn't change anything because they don't want a kid to start hating on parent. If one is loaded and buys the kid everything they want and another is poverty, these who the kid will prefer spending their time with

I think most states now use an income based calculation.

Like Christian said it isn't solely based on how the custody is split. Income still plays into it.

What is the alternative? Kid only gets to sleep inside and eat 3 meals on the day they stay with the parent that has a good income?

If you want to avoid paying child support then be pro-active with your own birth control and/or stick with partners that are around your same level for income.

Don't like how your state does it?

Organize. Come up with an alternative and try to get the law changed.

Should the father help take care of the kid? Absolutely

Should the money be given to the mother so she can spend it however she wants? Absolutely not

Here's an example of the bullchit that goes on nowadayshttp://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-...orres-2014136/