family courts and child support us broken and gender biased.

[annie24]

A chid does not need 1700 a month.. do u spend 1700 on one child a month, food, shelter etc..

 

My dad made 2 k a month, we had house food, clothe, trips. Its diff era. BUt no way it needs so much..

 

Look, what are you going to do now? Are you going to just complain here all day, or are you going to contact a lawyer and a dad's rights group?

[Fudgie]

I agree, 1900/1700 is too much. So go to a lawyer and get it lowered substantially. Then you won't have to pay her as much and she'll have to make do with less.

[Mercurial Girl]

Exactly my point.. 1700 a month shouldnt go to support her and the child.. we made this child together.. i should be supporting my child 50\50.. not her and my child.. im even down to support my child 60% but not her too. If she was my wife i would support all of her..

 

But u cant have it all. She takes my kid and still wants me to support all of her and my kud.. that is wrong and abusing the system.. and why women use it to favor them..

 

EXACTLY. $1700 wont support her and the baby. You aren't supporting her. She can't live off $1700, especially with a newborn. I don't think you understand how expensive a child is? Also if you did more research before losing it you'd realize these Mass. child support calculators DEDUCT payments you make towards childcare and health insurance from your amount owing. So the more you're paying towards daycare, health, etc, bring down your actual child support payments. And you think automatically you wont have any or will have barely any visitation rights - why? Why are you catastrophising everything?

 

She isn't going to be sitting there cooing at the baby all day everyday, smiles and sunshine and rainbows. You know that right? Because when you describe what her role in this will be, you paint this pretty picture where she's sitting around watching the baby grow before her eyes likes it's some fantasy fairytale land! She will need to find means to support herself and the baby as well.

 

25% of your income to help feed, clothe, and shelter your baby isn't exactly exorbitant. But the disturbing part is that it is enough for you to consider throwing away your rights and responsibilities towards your child.

[Seraphim]

A chid does not need 1700 a month.. do u spend 1700 on one child a month, food, shelter etc..

 

My dad made 2 k a month, we had house food, clothe, trips. Its diff era. BUt no way it needs so much..

 

Not in the beginning no children don't need that much but they do require more as they get older. It is when they get older they start to become much more expensive. My son is a teenager so his expenses are far more than a baby requires.

[Cheetarah]

There is not even an order to modify yet. And you can't just get payments reduced. There has to be cause, and it's still not a guarantee.

 

I felt for you until you stated, twice, you think you should just sign off your parental rights. I have read and participated in every one of your threads in regards to this woman and pregnancy. Signing away the rights to your child in response to feeling a bias in the court system is NOT reasonable.

 

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW VISITATION AND CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS ARE GOING TO GO YET.

 

And you forget...If you are at some point, able to BUILD a civil co-parenting relationship with your child's mother, she would very likely give you extra physical time in addition to court ordered.

[Mercurial Girl]

A chid does not need 1700 a month.. do u spend 1700 on one child a month, food, shelter etc..

 

My dad made 2 k a month, we had house food, clothe, trips. Its diff era. BUt no way it needs so much..

 

As explained to me by a judge once upon a time, the point of income-based child support payment calculations is to try to keep the child's quality of life the same as if the parents were together. It's not about how much it costs to raise a child and splitting it 50/50, it's about trying to keep the child's quality of life consistent no matter what the relationship between the parents. Whether it works or not is a separate discussion, but the point of it is that your child shouldn't have to suffer with lesser housing, lesser opportunities, etc because the parents have chosen not to raise him or her in a single family unit.

[annie24]

link removed

 

Ok, i don't know where OP is getting his $1700/1900 a month figures from, but I am getting $1350 when I type in his numbers.

[Seraphim]

I am with you and that I agree you do need to see your child and you should have every right to see your child I'm not arguing against that. I do agree that 1900 a month based on what you make is exorbitant. However me and other people have gone through that calculator and no way is it at 1900 a month. That would be based on she makes absolutely nothing zero and contributes exactly nothing to any payment whatsoever. You CAN bring up in court that she makes money under the table. Absolutely you can bring that up.

 

What I am arguing against is that you are making this all about her and not about your child at all. In your vendetta to screw her you're screwing your child. Just remember everything you do to her you're also doing to your son or daughter. THAT is what I am arguing against.

[Fudgie]

I would also consider taking a slightly lower paying job if you can, then readjusting child support. The less you make, the less you pay. If you show that you can't pay your bills on what you make, well, it will have to be less.

[annie24]

I would also consider taking a slightly lower paying job if you can, then readjusting child support. The less you make, the less you pay. If you show that you can't pay your bills on what you make, well, it will have to be less.

 

Lol. that's horrible. That seems like a good way to shoot yourself in the foot. Cutting off your nose to spite your face, etc....

[Mercurial Girl]

I would also consider taking a slightly lower paying job if you can, then readjusting child support. The less you make, the less you pay. If you show that you can't pay your bills on what you make, well, it will have to be less.

 

And this benefits...who, exactly?

[Fudgie]

Lol. that's horrible. That seems like a good way to shoot yourself in the foot. Cutting off your nose to spite your face, etc....

 

It works sometimes. Many men have done this. They end up with less but end up paying less in child support and may even get to keep more of their disposable income (percentage wise). That's why I suggested it.

[Fudgie]

And this benefits...who, exactly?

 

The man, of and the kid too. Child support still gets paid.

[Cheetarah]

While we're at it, why dont you just quit your job and work under the table. That'll show them.

[Furbys]

You know what.. I feel so sorry for this poor kid. Your complaining about playing child support and because its too much you have thought about signing your rights away. I think you need to take a moment and imagine if you were the child and your father is complaining about paying for you and wants to sign his rights away. How would you feel if that was you eh? You would feel like utter rubbish.

 

You made a child and now you have to take responsibility. Everyone knows that children cost a lot of money. By all means go and see another lawyer and see if they can get the cost down but no one said that having a child was easy. Its emotional, physical and costly.

[Seraphim]

You asked me how much it cost to raise my child per month. I just sat down and figured out his nutritional needs only. His nutritional needs only cost me $450 a month. It cost $85 a month just to keep him in bread and peanut butter alone. That does not consider his clothing needs ,his personal care needs , housing needs nothing like that. Here a jar of peanut butter is $10 for the 1 kg. And he eats one of those a week. He probably eats I'd say two loaves of bread a week maybe more. Because he has to have school lunches and what not. Bread can be as high as $3.69 a loaf. Milk for his cereal is probably $10 a week See what I'm getting at here?? Children are expensive.

[annie24]

It works sometimes. Many men have done this. They end up with less but end up paying less in child support and may even get to keep more of their disposable income (percentage wise). That's why I suggested it.

 

Fudgie, you're such a smart woman, and I know that 99% of the things you say on ENA are brilliant. But I think that purposely taking a crappier job just to pay less in child support is screwing over yourself and the child. It's certainly not good for his career trajectory.

 

IMHO, if he wants to minimize child support payments, then he needs to argue for joint custody. He'll have to move, and find a new job in Mass. But he'll have more time with the kid and pay less to his ex (if anything at all).

[Fudgie]

I'm just bringing it up as a viable method that men have used to deal with exorbitant child support costs when the court won't budge.

 

Obviously joint custody is preferable but if the woman fights it well, it won't happen. Many men don't get it despite wanting to be a dad.

 

To expect a man to work a high paying job just to break even to make payments that will likely not all go to the child is ridiculous to me.

 

Seriously, just Google it. Men do it. It's legal. It's an option.

[Seraphim]

Fudgie, you're such a smart woman, and I know that 99% of the things you say on ENA are brilliant. But I think that purposely taking a crappier job just to pay less in child support is screwing over yourself and the child. It's certainly not good for his career trajectory.

 

IMHO, if he wants to minimize child support payments, then he needs to argue for joint custody. He'll have to move, and find a new job in Mass. But he'll have more time with the kid and pay less to his ex (if anything at all).

 

I agree he should consider moving closer to his child. That way he can get better access to his child. The courts will take him more seriously as a father. And it is better off for him and the child.

[annie24]

I'm just bringing it up as a viable method that men have used to deal with exorbitant child support costs when the court won't budge.

 

Obviously joint custody is preferable but if the woman fights it well, it won't happen. Many men don't get it despite wanting to be a dad.

 

To expect a man to work a high paying job just to break even to make payments that will likely not all go to the child is ridiculous to me.

 

Seriously, just Google it. Men do it. It's legal. It's an option.

 

what a good example these men set for their children!!!! i bet these men are all dads of the year. maybe they should have thought about that before having sex??

 

The OP says he gets $4000 a month, he has $2800 in expenses, so he has $1200 left over. The online calculator I found said he would pay $1350 a month in child support. So, that's $150 deficit. He will have to scale back in some part of his life, make a sacrifice, but I don't see that the $1350 is unnecessarily punitive or that he can't afford it. Obviously, child support is calculated so that he can afford it.

[Cheetarah]

How many miles apart are you?

[lavenderdove]

>>But I think that purposely taking a crappier job just to pay less in child support is screwing over yourself and the child.

 

Actually, it's not necessarily legal either... Judges call it 'under-employment' and they get really annoyed if they think the man is quitting his job or working for less to try to get out of financial obligation to his children.

 

I know a man who did this when he realized his wife was about to leave him (and with good reason too because he was cheating), so he quit his job and then took a job paying about half as much. The judge evaluated everything and said he knew he did it to try to stiff him ex and children and he was 'under-employed', so he went ahead and assessed the man for child support he COULD make if he worked a job commensurate with his experience and skill level. So he quit a high paying job to take one for half the salary, and the judge just threw out that lower income, declared him under-employed, and went ahead and assessed him the higher amount because he knew he was capable of earning it and was trying to stiff his kid in his anger about the breakup.

 

So just taking a lesser job won't get you a lesser child support if that involves quitting a better paying job and taking a lesser one with timing that is suspicious and indicates it is a ploy to pay less child support. So this backfired on the guy and only made the judge annoyed with him because it was an obvious ploy. He of course had to quit his half pay job and go back to his regular employment, and as a tactic it just doesn't work with the courts because they are onto it. The person has to show their income is diminished thru no fault of their own, and with no hope of earning their prior salary if they want to avoid being hit with 'under-employed' statutes that prevent these kinds of attempts to stiff the ex and kids and lower their child support by taking a lower paying job.

[22n32]

I would also consider taking a slightly lower paying job if you can, then readjusting child support. The less you make, the less you pay. If you show that you can't pay your bills on what you make, well, it will have to be less.

 

I thought about this , a part time job that would have me be paying 800-1000 and claim only the part time job..

 

Im not doing it too take away from my kid.. or to cheat them.. if kid needs, clothes, food, whatever im there to provide endlessly and anytime, i just dont believe a kid needs 1900 a month. And im not gonna support the system.. its the princapal of it..

 

I got 200 a month in child support in the 90s, and because the both contributed 200 i always had, food, clothes, shoes, books summer camps..

 

I truly feel 600-800 on my part and she adds 600-800. Thats 1200-1600 together, it would bring a good life to the kid..

 

Me given her 1900 and she gets the kid and im left with the pieces.. is just rewarding her behvior..

[SapphireNoir10]

Taking a lower paying job to pay less for your child is one of the worst things I've heard on here. I can't believe that people do that!

 

The baby needs to come first. Not you or your needs. The child is number one priority. That money is going to him or her.

 

I know it's a horrible situation but you need to find a better laywer who can try and fight more for your rights.

 

I've always felt sorry for you on here, but the fact you are adament your CHILD doesn't need that money is not fair. The fact you'd rather sign off your rights or take a lower pying job.

 

It's not about being right. Or not rewarding her behaviour...what behaviour? She left you. That is allowed.

 

It's about THE CHILD.

[lavenderdove]

^^

Judges won't allow it. It's called 'voluntary underemployment' and most states won't allow it.