Child Support. Is it time the law stopped discrimination against men with 50/50 child custody, no child support payments and no alimony?

[ragooo8]

Yes

No

Updates

+1 y

Apperently gender equality as long as its in women's favour and when it's not its mysogny. Apperently I'm a mysongist incel for speaking in favour of gender equality when it comes to child support and child custody. Ex wives should also get jobs instead of alimony.

[OlderAndWiser]

I am an attorney and I have handled many divorce cases.

1. Some parents are great at sharing custody of their children and that is a very good outcome for children.

2. Maybe half of all divorced couples with children continue to feud and argue after the divorce. They do not communicate regarding the children and they use the children to send messages back and forth. This makes equal custody exremely difficult.

3. If parents have equal custody and the father earns more than the mother, despite her best efforts, then he should contribute to the children's expenses in proportion to his income and the mother should pay in proportion to her income. If her monthly share is $300 and his monthly share is $600 because he earns twice as much, then he owes her $150 per month for child support. That is how it works in my state and I think it is reasonable.

4. Arguments about child support are usually based on the unspoken premise that child support is a means of punishing a father and rewarding a mother. While butthurt dads may insist that is true, the purpose of child spport is to make sure that children have the things they need as they are growing up.

5. Some of the expenses of having children in your custody are extra rent because you need a three bedroom apartmenet instead of a one bedroom apartment. The grocery bills are higher. The utility bills are higher. These are some of the expenses that child support is intended to cover.

6. I am embarrassed to say that in 36 years of practicing law, I have seen MANY more dads who really did not want the responsibility of children as opposed to mothers who shunned their responsibility. Men who claim that they want 50/50 custody do so for the purpose of minimizing their child support obligation and as soon as a judge signs a custody order to that effect, they stop exercising those rights and give the mother excuses for why they can't get the kids this weekend or next week.

7. In my state, the law does not hate men. It merely takes account of the realities of men vs. women as parents, and it seeks to do the best thing for the children.

[ragooo8]

Sorry those are 1950s attitudes that have no place in 2022. Women can do stuff now, including earn a living.

[OlderAndWiser]

Those are not 1950's atitudes. Yes, women can earn a living and they are also expected to contribute to the support of their children.

[nonyabeezwax132342]

I know homeless dudes who are expected to pay $1250 a month to see a kid for 3 hours once a month. Maybe they wouldn't be "butthurt" if you'd stop raping them in the ass with a gabble. Those are definitely 1950s attitudes. Child support has nothing to do with making sure the child is taken care of, and you know it. If it was about taking care of the child then it would be $50 a month per child from BOTH parents into a savings for when unexpected expensive happen, with the burden of proof of what was bought and why on the parent spending the money. Kids don't cost $1250 a month, and everyone knows it. "But muh health care/insurance" I hear the courts screech, in which I respond with; any reasonable parent already had their kid on some sort of health insurance. Can't afford it: medicare is free, care scource is great. I literally know men who have had their kid on health insurance and they still charged $350 a month. None of that is income based or we wouldn't have homeless fathers. A single kid does not cost 30% of a mans income each month. And it doesn't make since to hand money to a mother for food and tell her to only spend it on the child's food. I don't know of any parent who sections off the refrigerator and tells their kid they can only eat from certain sections. The kids everyday living expenses are included in the parents everyday living expenses. That's part of being a responsible parent. Only unexpected expenses like wardrobe updates, new shoes, a new bed, toothbrush, etc only comes up every now and then and is definitely not going to cost more than $100. I don't care WHAT you do for a living. Over half of what you said was a lie, and you confirmed it as a lie by labeling those who disagree with you as "butthurt" to try and delegitimize their arguments. Those are 1950s additudes and equality under the law should be the standard but its not.

[hahahmm]

The problem is that it's only the good moms who would actually do what's best for the kid. There's a lot of bad moms out there who will actually blow as much money on themselves as possible and just use the kid as a prop to get that money. Also, government has become a nanny state trying to force people to do what's "right" in the opinion of do-gooders. For most of human history women did not even raise boys beyond age 4 or 5. Men did. It was a good idea too because very few moms have any clue at all how to raise a boy into being a man.

[nonyabeezwax132342]

@hahahmm This is a good point. I think a lot of the behavior could be curbed if we just make divorce unprofitable for men, women, and parents.

[hahahmm]

@nonyabeezwax132342 Right. It's pretty simple, if you can't afford to raise a kid on your own then you should be considered unfit... not given cash. But if we're going to give cash by force of law, I don't see why if the dad is paying 90% of the kid's expenses why the mom shouldn't then owe him 40% (so they're both at 50/50). So she should have a financial debt to him. That would be in line with the idea of equality that feminists push.

[nonyabeezwax132342]

@hahahmm the the problem with that is feminist don't push a quality they're misandrist, not egalitarians. Kids don't usually cost that much in the first place, as I addressed above.

[hahahmm]

@nonyabeezwax132342 True about costs... there are women who divorced rich men who were getting tens of thousands per month. Ha!

[Anonymous]

child support is toxic and is being abused by women. I've known far too many women getting child support, who use that money to go to the Bahamas and shit, while dumping the kid off at her mom's house. Or buying expensive jewelry and shit with the "child support money". It's a scam and women should lose custody of their child if found guilty of this, and more importantly, this shit needs to be heavily investigated. Momma don't need a Bentley that she got with child support money. The end.

The whole system if fucked, and for proof, one need look no further than all the many cases of women getting full ownership of the MAN's business in the divorce. Is there a single logical reason as to why the woman needs to get the MAN's farm/mechanic shop/ranch/heavy duty truck he uses for his construction business and so on, in the divorce when she had NOTHING to do with any of it?

Then the man is supposed to go out and start over, finding a new job from scratch AND pay her child support so she can fly off to Vegas 3 times a month? It happens every day, and women get their panties in a twist if you bring it up. Nothing "incel" about it. It's just facts.

Why u think so many men are putting hot sauce in their condoms now after they have sex? Because too many women go grab the condom out of the trash, and try to get pregnant with it--which should be illegal. But they looking to get a guy on the hook for that rich child support money to fund their expensive trips and fashion accessories.

I feel bad for the kids in all this. How would it feel to know your daddy sent money for you to have a better life and your "loving momma" blew it on a party with her girlfriends?

[Daniela1982]

If someone wants equality, then let's do it across the board. Are both parents working? Does the custodial parent have to pay child care in order to work? Then why shouldn't that cost be split? Does the custodial parent take the kids to school, go to their parent/teacher conferences, take them to doctor appointments, etc. Then that time used should be split and gas money split. It's not fair that one parent gets saddled with 3 kids while the other gets to go out on dates, nights out with the guys/gals, and anything else they want to do. But it's also not fair to gouge the other for excess support, like some of these women married to celebs who get $50,000 a month support do. That is totally outrageous! And there is a lot of things the custodial has to do the other doesn't. The kid's laundry, making their lunches for school, taking them clothes shopping, getting them up in the morning for school and making their meals. All this is like having a job so they should be compensated for that.

[Miristheiss]

If there is 50/50 custody... all of what you describe takes place in EACH of the 2 households.

[Daniela1982]

@Miristheiss Not necessarily. Just depends on if you had a better lawyer than the other.

[ragooo8]

@Miristheiss agreed your right. 50/50 mean each parent pays their share when the child's in their care. Childcare payments are the responsibility of each parent when the child is in their care, its likely each parent would be paying childcare anyway if they are working.

[nonyabeezwax132342]

Ragoo is right.

[Daniela1982]

@nonyabeezwax132342 Only if he is on spaghetti.

[CrazyGirl2]

It actually costs a lot of money to raise a child. Why are men these days SO opposed to paying to help raise their own children? I agree that alimony seems like old fashioned anti-feminist and insulting… “there there little girl, don’t worry, that man you hated so much you left him, and took half of his stuff, well we’ll just get him to pay it all! Yeah, not exactly “I Am Woman Hear Me Roar” is it?

[ragooo8]

Why are women so opposed to financially supporting their children equally with their ex baby daddies? You've got baby daddies working to support kids they hardly when they should have 50/50 custody.

[CrazyGirl2]

I’m 19, I am certainly no expert in the intricacies of the juvenile court system. But it is my understanding 50/50 custody, is NOT the same as Primary Residential Custody or PRC. And even though parents my share joint legal custody, the child overwhelmingly spends the bulk of their time at moms, and 4 days a month w/ dad. So child support is calculated, based on the incomes of both parents. and the expenses (including housing expense) And split between the two. The mother is assigned an amount SHE must contribute, and the father is assigned an amount. As the child is w/ mom 27days a-month (almost exactly 4 cal enter weeks) and is with dad 4 days. Food and housing is overwhelmingly paid by mom, Mom is also paying 5/6 of the daily bs expenses that just come up. What’s left is split between them, and since mom writing a check to herself is asinine and a waste of energy, dad writes a check to pay his half of the child’s expenses… but again, why do I know I'm barely out of high school?

[ragooo8]

50/50 custody is the child spending 50% of the time with either parents. That's the problem as the father only gets 4 days per month because mercenary baby mamma's want child support

[CrazyGirl2]

Ok, well sorry about that, like I said… only 19yo, no children no idea what it’s like to be raising children without help from the father! Look if they’re your children (metaphorically speaking) friggin’ take care of them! You shouldn’t leave your ex all alone to pay for their upbringing without any help from you! As for your silly attempt to link you actually supporting your children, and that being antithetical to living as a strong independent woman! You’re not supporting the mother, you’re supporting your little kid! If you are mature enough to make love to a woman, you are mature enough to stfu and pay your child support like a man! I’m against alimony, but it’s not the taxpayers’ responsibility to support YOUR child! And if it irks you that your ex gets to live in the same nice home you’re paying 50% of for your child’s portion for, and for your child to live there… Get Over It!

[nonyabeezwax132342]

That's the problem men are dictated to leave the mother alone. Most men WANT their kids, but only 14% of fathers nation wide get any kind of meaningful time with their kids, being 50/50 or more. The court calculates nothing off income. They can take up to 70% of a guys income. 50/50 is about 3 1/2 days a week at either parents, or it can be divided 50/50 in a number of ways, half a month, half a year, every other year, etc... The issue with traditional child support is that parents usually buy the same food just more of it. I don't know of any parent who sections off the part of their refrigerator and then tells their kid they can only eat from that. The extra expenses to raise a kid after the age of 3-5 do not usually exceed $50 per kid. (How do I know? I'm a father.) So the issue is that the courts like to take anywhere from $330 to $1250 per child and just give it to the mother after a $15 processing fee. Like wtf? It would make more since if the child support was $50 a month from both parents, with a burden of proof on what the money is spent on.

The courts also don't look to the father as a viable parent. The mother usually keeps more than 50/50 custody, unless she's convicted of murder, or there is other hard extremly compelling evidence of her being unfit. It doesn't matter if she does Dru's or is homeless, and the father has a stable home, she gets the kids unless she says otherwise. When I was a kid, might not be the case now, the courts would actually give the kids to the parents of the mother before the father was even considered. The only reason my dad got custody of me when I was 6 months old is because my grand parents on my eggdoners side said "we don't want him".

[CrazyGirl2]

@nonyabeezwax132342 “Men are dictated to leave the mother alone” The ONLY time (under US law) when a man as ordered to stay away from his ex, an have no contact, is when SHE can walk into court, and through showing a preponderance of evidence, proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he in fact assaulted her! Evidence such as; photographs of injuries from the hospital, and medical reports that sho the wound could never come fron an accident, she was punched and forensic analysis shows that it’s his fist!

[nonyabeezwax132342]

That's not true at all. The mother does not have to give the father any parenting time outside of what the courts dictate, and thus men are dictated to stay away due to the favor of mothers in family courts. Family courts use retraining orders liberally to prevent fathers from seeing their kids outside of the court mandated parenting time, the mother just has to make up a lie. I've personally seen this happen.

What, do you expect men to get away with harassing their ex over getting more parenting time? That wouldn't happen. The mother would get a restraining order, and the father would lose what little parenting time he had.

Also, no. A woman just has to call the cops and tell them she's been hit by a boyfriend and he will get arrested. Happens often. Hell, even when the guy is being abused in the domestic situation, without witnesses the man will be arrested, or removed from HIS home. Doesn't matter who's house it actually is.

I recommend you watch the documentary The Red Pill. it might give you some perspective, and show you that just because a law is written one way, doesn't mean its in forced that way.

[CrazyGirl2]

@nonyabeezwax132342 I’ve actually seen it, and yet somehow I didn’t walk away with a persecution complex. Go figure! Look, there are several points where in principle I agree. But if you are still going to insist that Primary Residential Custody (Physical Custody) and Legal Custody are the same thing, well I’m afraid we are going to have to part friends here! Fyi, I’ve included a link to a family law page that you can read an learn the difference: requestlegalhelp.com/.../ As you can now see, it is perfectly simple as to how a farther may have 50/50 shared legal custody, but only get visitation every other weekend, in the same way he might not have ANY legal custody at all, but STILL see his kids every other weekend. And in Florida, unless there is a compelling child-safety reason why not; the law requires that all divorces w/ minor children must have shared legal custody (that’s 50/50)! I don’t know who hurt you so badly, but it’s none of my business. Bye 👋🏼

[nonyabeezwax132342]

Wow, way to dismiss men's suffering. Also again just because the law is written that way, does not mean its applied that way. No, you clearly haven't seen it, either that or you're just straight up a misandrist. No one hurt me, this is how the real world of family law has worked for 35+ years. Almost every guy has seen this shit in their real life. But whatever, I guess it's none of your business. After all, its why a large growing portion of men are forgoing meaningful or committed relationship with women all together. Good luck getting married in 10 years when a majority of men has realised the truth of the matter. Best of luck to you.

[CrazyGirl2]

@nonyabeezwax132342 Also, I wanted to address this “ The mother does not have to give the father any parenting time outside of what the courts dictate” this has to be one if the least thought out points I’ve read in a long time! What you are saying is that you are shocked, or upset that when dealing with court ordered visitation, the mother is a bad person for OBEYING the court order and even though she makes sure that the child goes with dad as outlined by the court order, she is not REQUIRED to give the father even one second of additional, unscheduled visitation whenever he decides to show up at the door! This is especially troublesome given that the standard court ordered visitation is specifically designed to avoid this exact situation. IF she did allow Dad to see the kids whenever he showed-up at her door, THAT would be her violating the court order! If you want more time with your children, do it the proper legal way, file a motion with the court for an order of modification in visitation, instead of just showing up whenever you feel like it, and demanding to see your kid (s). It’s bullshit like that, which caused you to get a no contact order in the first place. Just do what the court order says to do, and stop EXPECTING your ex to drop everything, and violate a court order just because you “were in the neighborhood”! Besides anything else, it’s disruptive for the kids who need structure and a schedule after suffering a trauma like the break-up of the parents marriage!

[nonyabeezwax132342]

Wow, read the comment in context.

"The mother does not have to give the father any parenting time outside of what the courts dictate, and thus men are dictated to stay away due to the favor of mothers in family courts. Family courts use retraining orders liberally to prevent fathers from seeing their kids outside of the court mandated parenting time, the mother just has to make up a lie. I've personally seen this happen.

What, do you expect men to get away with harassing their ex over getting more parenting time? That wouldn't happen. The mother would get a restraining order, and the father would lose what little parenting time he had. "

I stand by my point. The mother doesn't have to, which is the point.

Also, we already established that you're a misandrist on another question. Thus, I won't take anything you say seriously.

[nonyabeezwax132342]

Mis-read the name for a minute. Please disregard the comment about the misandrist in another thread.

[CrazyGirl2]

@nonyabeezwax132342 I see, nobody hurt you? You just had the most happy peaceful, let’s say tranquil court process with your ex regarding your kid? You just decided become a Mens Rights Activist out of sheer compassion for your fellow man? Good for you.

[nonyabeezwax132342]

Actually I did. I'm not divorced. If Men's Rights Activist all have to be divorced, hurt men, doesn't that mean all feminist have to be raped, hurt women?

Since I will have to spell this out for you anyways, the premise of my question is actually; why does it have to be reactionary? Does it always have to be something must be wrong with the individual before they take action to fix a problem?

No. I, like many others, saw a problem in Society in decided to address it.

[CrazyGirl2]

@nonyabeezwax132342 First off misandrist? You clearly don’t know me, I’m the girl who took a bunch of crap during a discussion on rape and false accusations, when I said “Screw that, I don’t believe in #BelieveAllWomen, because women do lie sometimes! I what I believe in is believe in Believe All Evidence!” I’m also on record as stating that I feel terrible for men right now, they are getting shit on from every side, and they are not even allowed to say that they don’t like it! Now, as far as me having trouble “getting a man to marry me?” I’m just going to have to LOL you right there. Because you definitely don’t know me. I’m 19, a former gymnast, & a competition level cheerleader, I have a 149 IQ, I already own my own house, and I’ve had two marriage proposals (one quite serious), just since last August, I get asked out, at LEAST twice a day, and I’m sweet and polite to every last one of them. Many would say I’m more than moderately attractive, and I’m also a trust fund baby. On my 25th birthday I’ll have access to millions, along with an extra six figures being deposited every quarter. So in 10 years, I won’t even be 30 yet, I’ll still have my looks, and i’ll have unimaginable wealth. Do you seriously think that I won’t be able to get a husband? Sweetie, I’m not JUST gonna get A husband. I’m going to get an amazing, one of a kind, A #1, world class, like super model/plastic surgeon w/ a show on A&E, who spends his free time fixing cleft lips & palettes of poor orphans… of a husband! That’s who I’ll be getting sweetie! But even if I marry a plumber, I’ll do it because I love him, and I know he loves me but most importantly because he would make the best dad. Also he’d never have to work again, ever! OH Yeah it’s definitely going to be a real uphill battle for me, I can just see it!

[nonyabeezwax132342]

Look, illiteracy seems to be a real problem. Misandrist. Yes. As in someone who hates men.

You seem to be all over the place. First you're claiming that men aren't discriminated against, then you're claiming you care about men who are falsely accused of rape?

You should make up your mind.

Either you're for equal rights, and by extension equal treatment under the law, or you're not.

[CrazyGirl2]

@nonyabeezwax132342 Oh just STOP! What the hell are you trying to accomplish? You think you’ll change my mind that “so-called men” need to stop their whining, and pay their child support… of don’t and loose your driver’s license, and go to jail. I literally couldn’t give damn! You have your opinion, and you’re entitled to it… of course your opinion is that you shouldn’t have to pay child support! Which makes you against taking care of kids, which makes you a terrible person. And you’re spouting bullshit about how all the mother’s do is jet to Vegas (w/the girls) to party on the child support, or cruising to the Bahamas on that sweet sweet minimum child support payment! What fantasy are you living in? Single mother’s are BY FAR the poorest demographic in the US. So where you are getting these stories from I have no idea, and I don’t care, I’m sure some bitch ex of a millionaire has done something like that. But you don’t change the laws because of a few exceptions! I’m done with this topic now… This is Girls ask Guys, not girls ask guys, and the guys harangue the girls for days just for daring to disagree!

[nonyabeezwax132342]

You're misrepresting the view point. 50/50 custody should be reduced child support. What we have right now steals men of their Financial stability, mental health, and ability to be there for their kids. Maybe women should get jobs and stop stealing from fathers.

[nonyabeezwax132342]

Robs* not steals.

[CrazyGirl2]

@nonyabeezwax132342 Don’t care, I’m not saying that you are a TROLL, but you are doing one HELL of a good impersonation of one, so I’m done with this topic, I’m done with you! Bye 👋🏼

[nonyabeezwax132342]

Have a nice day.

[libsaretards]

Child support, alimony and custody law needs to be reformed. The law is complex, but in a nutshell here are the changes I would make:

1. Child support payments should go to an account specifically for the child, not in the custodial parent's main bank account. This account would/could be monitored by the court.

2. This account can ONLY be used for things that benefit the child or for events FOR THE CHILD. No salon purchases, nail purchases, baseball games, etc. for the parents. Receipt of purchases for this account MUST be produced for the non-custodial parent and the court when requested. Use of this account could be challenged in court for the judge to decide if the purchase was a legitimate purchase for the child or not. Child support is not there to support the ex it is there for the child. Before this account can be touched, either the parents would have to agree what expenses can be used OR the judge decides if no agreement is reached. Regardless of agreement/court order, the FIRST things this account MUST be used for is basic necessities and school-related expenses. Misuse of these funds could result in criminal penalties.

3. Get rid of alimony after 1 year. Nobody should be obligated to fund their ex's lifestyle when they are not married. Once a divorce is final, each person needs to be an adult and fend for themselves. 1 year after a divorce is more than enough time for an ex spouse to find work and support themselves.

4. Custody should default to being 51/49. In some situations one parent may need to be the deciding factor in an emergency or for the sake of school-related things, but should not have so much power that the other parent has to lift a mountain to be a parent to the child. This split can be negotiated between the parents or in court when the parents cannot come to an agreement or in case of the welfare of the child.

5. The enforcement of defaulted child support needs to change. Automatically sending a parent to jail for lack of child support is counter-productive because that parent cannot pay the support if they cannot work due to being in jail. There should be steps in place before jail time is even on the table. Once those steps have been exhausted, THEN put jail on the table. The first 2 times the parent is released from jail for this issue, they must be granted 3-6 month to get on their feet before they can be jailed again for this issue. For example:

Jail Stay 1: 1-2 weeks in jail. 3-6 months to get on feet before payments resume.

Jail Stay 2: 1-2 months in jail. 3-6 months to get on feet before payments resume.

Jail Stay 3+: 6 months in jail. No grace period to resume payments and payments resume 30 days after release.

[Dragonpurple]

In many states, mine included. A man could be married and find out later that the child is not his, that his wife cheated on him. Files for divorce from the cheater but he still has to pay child support for a kid that isn't even his biologically.

The state defaults to the husband paying support, and does not care who the real father is. Even if the biological father wants to be part of the child's life they won't let him. The reason being is the state lets the mother fill out the birth certificate and she puts whoever she wants on it for the father. No cheating wife is going to put her lovers name on it, she'll always put her husband's. Now that his name is on it, he is screwed.

I fully support a law that does a quick paternity test on newborns after birth before allowing it to be recorded that the husband is actually the father or not. Women often think it is not needed and shows that men don't trust their wives. If they are not a cheater, they shouldn't have any objection to it.

This is another reason men should not get married, cause if they just live together and she cheats, he won't get stuck with child support if the kid is not his.

They say it isn't a big enough issue here, cause it is only a few hundred men per year having to pay support for a kid that isn't theirs, cause it in the best interest of the child and the state tax payers. No father, means they qualify for more food stamps and assistance by making some guy who happened to marry a cheater pay it, it saves tax payer money.

Joint physical custody should be the default, unless proven otherwise that it isn't in the best interest of the child. Burden of proof should go on whoever is trying to reduce rights of the other parent.

[VanillaSalt]

No see that’s not quite right. Both of you took on the making of the child so both have a responsibility. If one parents got them all the time what’s the other supposed to do to contribute?


That being said it’s not applied right. Women can baby trap men by lying about contraception or even stealing condoms from the trash. There’s been cases where the men were sperm donors and never even met the women whom still have to pay. 60% of child support goes to the government? Men can go to jail for months which stops them from making money meanwhile the interest continues to ramp up? There’s a comedian from Canada whom can’t go back because he’ll be put in prison for life over child support and that’s acceptable?


Meanwhile the other inequality is 80% of divorces filed by women. They CHOOSE to do it alone rather then work through the marriage for the kids sake. Many CHOOSE to exclude the father. Women, also being the sex that gives birth, have more at stake for having kids but they do it anyway. There needs to be accountability for our choices for sure but is this the way?


Giving stupid people that picked bad partners in marriage the ability to make their own choice in divorce seems to be the leading cause of this shit… take away divorce in all but the most severe situations if a child involved would rectify 90% of this fucking problem overnight!

[Moose304]

Yep, I'm a man and thankfully am not now going through this AND never will. This is my take. Nobody should be paying spousal support forever. If the kids are 50 50 then you pay to support them when you have them and your ex pays when they have them. One should be saving and planning for their college and the other paying for their insurance. Back to spousal support! First off ALL the divorce laws need to be changed that IF a spouse commits infidelity and it can be proven the courts go to instant rescission. If the wife is a SAHM and cheats I'm all for giving her half the money in the bank, plus half of any real estate acquired during the marriage. Then that's it. If she can't afford to take care of the kids their father gets them until such a time she can do so. This crap has got to pure BULLSHIT levels today! The divorce laws in the USA are basically patently unfair, this is causing MEN and WOMEN both to suffer! There is a female singer in the news recently who is paying her husband an ungodly amount of money in support. Does anybody remember Kate Jackson from Charlie's Angels? After she and Andrew Stevens got divorced she lost her rear in the settlements. This is NOT a battle of the sexes with me. It is about an unfair system that needs to be reformed last week!

[Oigit]

In general a lot of things when it comes to custody need to be looked at and there are going to be some harsh realities that come with it. There are times where the father would very much be the better option when it comes to parenting and due to the mothers issues she is doing to do nothing but a destructive influence on the child. But without having the money to get a high priced lawyer, the mother can end up with sole custody or primary custody. Simply because the father can't afford the price of a lawyer that specializes in a fathers custody case.

[ragooo8]

Very true. Its just assumed she should have custody due to her gender.

[ZackBan]

The one thing that definitely needs to change is the divorce courts bias towards women.
I am sorry but there is no way that 90% of the time the mother is the most fit parent to raise the kid it's just the traditional option and it's never been fair.
Divorce court needs to be objective in the choice, which parent is more stable, can offer the kid a better life, has the least amount of problems going on I'm sure there will be many fathers who will make that cut.
Too often we hear about kids growing up with a drug addict mom with a perfectly healthy dad who was denied contact with his own kids and that needs to stop.

[IMuser]

1. If either of the parent is harmful for child's well being (abusive father or inattentive mother), then custody by all means should be one sided
2. How would a shared child custody work? Like will the parents get to keep their child at their place for a few days every week? Like Monday to Wednesday the father keeps AND Thursday to Saturday the child stays with his mother? And on Sunday they stay together for the day and the child goes back to the father for Monday to Wednesday?
3. If the mother is unable to work for some reason, what should happen? (Or if the father can't work)

(If the answer hasn't applied, yes I support shared custody)

[Lucy-123]

I don't know how the child support laws work. But I think it should be that whoever takes care of the kids should receive money from the other parent if they make more than the parent taking care of the kid. It shouldn't have anything directly to do with the gender of the parents. Statistically it is more likely the woman would be the one looking after the kid so the woman should be paid by the man, in a straight relationship anyway obviously. But if the woman earns more than the man and the kids are being looked after by the man, then it should absolutely be that the woman pays child support to the man. It's just that is less statistically common so that situation of child support will in turn be less common.

[ragooo8]

In most cases the father isn't given the option of 50/50 custody and custody is dictated by the mother to every other weekend or once a month to ensure she gets maximum child support.
As both are parents both should have equal responsibility for supporting their child/children financially and equal custody

[bamesjond0069]

It should be opposite. Having the child is a benefit. Having money is a benefit. Why would one parent both get the kid and get payments? If they can't pay for the privilege of the kid they should give the other parent the custody who is better equipped to care for the child.

[Lucy-123]

@bamesjond0069 Having more money isn't the only factor if whether they would be better to take care of the child. They might be the richest person in the world but that doesn't matter if they're a child abuser, as an extreme example.

Are you saying the money should go to the other parent? I. e one gets the child and one gets money? Lol

[bamesjond0069]

No but its kinda stupid in the first place. Ie look at wealthy people. The rich dad has a kid with a poor woman. She then demands and is provided a huge child support so the child can live with a poor person but as if they are rich. What nonsense. Why not just be under the care of the highly functional successful parent with no child support required?

[nonyabeezwax132342]

I think there should be a child support fund, like 50$/month for each child from both parents, saved back for emergencies like new shoes, New bed, clothes, doctor vistets, etc. With requirements to show proof of purchase of what the money was spent on.

Traditional child support has never made any sense, because I don't of a single parent who would section of a portion of their fridge and tells their kid that they can only eat from that section.

Everything else I agree with. Its time for equality.

[annabananna]

No, with child support it’s about the kids. Whoever is raising the kids majority of the time whether male or female should absolutely get child support. Kids are expensive and no one should have to take most of the responsibility. As for Alimony it is fair. It is to help the person with a major life transition. The person who makes less money needs help with that transition initially. I think people are WAY too cold to each other after divorce and fight too much of I want it all. You got married to be partners so in divorce don’t be greedy.

[sirderpsalot123]

I agree with you on child support. But having to financially support someone you are no longer married to? Fuck that. You don't even have to have kids with them. That law makes absolutely no sense.

[annabananna]

I like it for stay at home moms or dads who in the event of divorce could use financial support to get some kind of training or education to pursue a career. There are some cases that I think wow that other person got way more than they deserve or what’s fair and it by no means a perfect system but I do like it in certain situations.

[sirderpsalot123]

I can see where you're coming from but I feel that as a grown adult, you should have this figured out. You know there is a possibility that you could get a divorce and you should have a back up plan. Adults should have the means to take care of themselves and handle their own business.

[MAC1983]

If you think being an adult means you should have things figured out, you are giving way too much credit to human beings.

John Lennon said "Life is what happens when you're making plans", and the best plans can fall apart, even backups, particularly when you can no longer count on someone you shared your life with...

That said, I feel this question is too hard to answer because International and National laws are so different on this.

[sirderpsalot123]

You're not going to change my mind. You aren't entitled to anything from someone you aren't married to.

[MAC1983]

Was not trying to change your mind at all, really, but OK. 🤷

Like I wrote, different countries have different practices.

Also, I'm sorry about your update, there is way too much name-calling on GaG.

[ragooo8]

No with child support the mother generally maintains the majority of custody so thd father has to pay her child support, its actually pretty mercenary.
Custody should be 50/50 by default and mother's and ex wives should get jobs like everyone else to support themselves and do the morally correct thing of supporting their children financially

[annabananna]

Yes, it should be 50/50 by default and that makes sense for most parents and mother’s who just use that as a tool that for those reasons are wrong but in the case where I’m divorced parent it makes sense for one to have majority custody or physical custody I think they should get support. Most of the times child support isn’t so much that the mom gets left over money for them. There are the few men that make a ton of money and the child support is large where the other party gets to live this nice lifestyle but that is rare. Maybe they should make a cap on the amount someone can get on child custody no matter how much the parent can make. I also don’t understand why some states have child support until 21.

[lrina]

it's so messed up how women are the ones divorcing half of the time and they can just take half of their husbands money for like... no reason

[msc545]

women initiate divorces 90% of the time.

[JohnK123]

That’s true

[Ez-Bri-Z]

Closer to 80% but it is high

[AncientWisdom]

Yes it’s long past due. When we start holding women accountable for not working on their relationships and leaving because they think they deserve better , all this crap will come to a halt. It’s coming too. 78 % of suicides are men who have been raped financially and legally although immorally by a cheating lying ass female. They need harsh penalties just like men get.

[AvaOneLasTime]

Discriminating men should stop. Period.
Sorry, 'sisters'. Wait, i take that back. I mean, i am not sorry.

[nonyabeezwax132342]

Perhaps you could clarify, do you mean "discriminating against men should stop?"

[DaveJord]

Honestly I think. law has, I know women that pay child support and spousal support.

But honestly 50/50 when there was never a 50/50 contribution. They swore to love honor and charish... through sickness and health... blah blah blah. But they didn't, didn't even come close and they want more? Not fair, they scream equality then give then a chance to be your equal... then all they want is free money.

[michael1469]

Exactly!!! Total bullsht to think non custodial parent pays less. Most of the non custodial parents money is wasted. Try buying a set of clothes for the kidlet and they grow out of them eveb before they are worn. Then she would piss and moan they werent good enough when I sent them home so the kidlet would actually get to wear them at some point. You would think common sense would be to naturally rotate them upon pick up and drop off by having then dress in the other cloth. My ex's stupidity was endless. It wasn't about my daughter, it was about keeping me in the poor house for retribution...

[Joseph3253]

Regardless of the woman financial situation, i think child support should exist, i mean, even if the woman have a stable career, if you were together, you would be "sharing custody" and you would be paying things for your child. The problem is when something like the third image happens, the child support should be used to pay bills or thing for the child. In this case sould have someway to see how the money from child support is spent.

[Ericastevens]

I understand what you are saying and it makes sense, I think in most cases nowadays that is what happens anyway. If it is 50/50 then you don’t have to pay. I don’t know any person who receives alimony either…I think that is for the upper class. However, I will say that it is most likely more of a struggle for the woman to afford kids after divorce- especially if she raised them, she may have been out of the work force for like 6 years for example, and if she started having kids when she had newly started a career after college then she might have to enter again at minimum wage being 6 years behind you career wise. Plus she will not have much of a retirement started most likely. But if she does receive support for the kids then it should be temporary- maybe just for like the amount of time she paused her career. I don’t know exactly.

[VanillaSalt]

Agree with everything you’ve said and have suggested the same temporary support. However. First off divorce shouldn’t be so easy. Second and a bigger problem is we need standards if this is going to be a law. The fact is women want 50/50 right now then demand alimony and child support… while I agree it’s fair for a traditional housewife you can’t argue the newer modern women not performing the same selfless duties also qualify for such benefit.

Ide personally prefer no fault divorce be abolished or at the very least any divorce involving children require proof of a dangerous situation. It shouldn’t be up to people that made bad choices to make another bad choice. Divorce is a bad thing yet controls 53% of all marriage… 60% of his child support payments go to the god damn government! What in the actual fuck?

No marriage is for richer or for poorer, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, UNTIL DEATH DO US PART… leaving an escape from a bad or dangerous marriage is obvious but leaving an out for poor choices? We have to face consequences for the choices we make. If fathers don’t pay for their kids in child support and women remain on government aid it weakens the whole damn country and leaves everyone poor. This is why I won’t marry. You people these days don’t value it properly.

[bamesjond0069]

@VanillaSalt child support incentivizes divorce and poor marriage selection. Women literally go get knocked up by the first man with a bmw that fucks them drunk as a payday. How could that ever be a functional marriage? Cap child support at about 100 dollars and these women will stop targeting rich men for a payday and go for actual relationships.

[Ericastevens]

@VanillaSalt And I agree with everything you said, and thanks for bringing up the poor choices thing because I meant to- if for example your spouse cheats on you, it would be REALLY annoying to support them- although better for the kids for both homes to be financially stable so I don’t know what to do in that situation.

Also…what do you do if you know your spouse cheated, but have no proof or if your spouse is abusive, but you have no proof except your (words which count for nothing- he said, she said). Then you are stuck with them?

[bamesjond0069]

@ericastevens well what makes abuse a magic bullet oh they slapped me now we have to divorce? And I've heard this myth that someone is perfect for years and then one day they just punch their spouses face for no reason. I mean thats not how this works. Ofc abuse is not good but lets be real, how many marriages do you think have zero abuse or cheating on either side every not once? Id bet almost zero.

[VanillaSalt]

@ericastevens ima give my opinion and you won’t like it. Marriage is for children. Marriage is permanent until someone breaks the agreement… the ONLY allowance for divorce should be abuse and cheating. Women prove cheating all the damn time. Abuse always leaves a mark eventually yes some will slip past but you can’t save everyone as horrible as that sounds. But… family court rapes men. Men commit suicide over family court and divorce… if it can’t be impartial then the only options to get rid of no fault divorce. If kids are involved divorce outside abuse should be blocked 100%. Losing the butterflies is not a good enough reason to take a man’s kids, money, family, and purpose…

There’s so much to do. But the first and foremost thing that needs to be done is remind men women are worth improving for… and women need to be worth it. I’m sorry but to me I don't know you much so your just another woman not worth thinking about. If I come to know you that opinion will change whether being for the better or worse… but I have next to no reason to get to know you. It’s a high risk potentially high reward gamble. The odds of divorce right now statically are 53% and the possibility of the success I want… well. Women like what I want don’t exist anymore.

[Ericastevens]

@VanillaSalt I know you are right about next to zero marriages having no abuse or cheating. Maybe you are right and getting rid of no fault divorce would help things.

Yes, the only reason for marriage is for children. It’s like an agreement to pool resources- time, care, money so that your children have the best chance of thriving.

I hear you about divorce courts, my brother went through a terrible divorce. It’s all so painful with children involved. Agreed, people should not divorce just because they fall out of love. The grass isn’t greener on the other side.

My brother and my sister went through bad divorces. I don’t want anyone to have to go through it.

[VanillaSalt]

I don’t think I said most relationships are without abuse and cheating. On the contrary all of my relationships involved a cheating partner… I’m good at picking them.

[Ericastevens]

@VanillaSalt No I said next to zero have no abuse/cheating (just like you said). Sorry you are bad at picking them. Not your fault.

[bamesjond0069]

Hey y'all it was i who said that. @ericastevens @VanillaSalt

[VanillaSalt]

That was the other guy lol

[Ericastevens]

@bamesjond0069 oh sorry! 😄

[bamesjond0069]

Kids do not cost $800 a month. Whether dad makes $25k a year or $300k a year child support should be a set amount like $150 a month period, a 2 yr old does not eat as much as a grown ass adult! There should be no child support in the vast majority of cases with 50/50 and no support should be default. If mom can't keep a roof over her head before calculating a childs cost, than she is not a functioning adult and should not have custody.

[annabananna]

Daycare where I live cost 700 a month minimum. Lol I wish they were that inexpensive.

[bamesjond0069]

@annabananna but a child doesn't have to go to daycare? Why not just give the other parent custody? Its stupid to fight for custody just to pawn the kid off and then ask the other parent to pay for it.

[annabananna]

Most of the time both parent have to work during the day so daycare is only option. If one stays home and doesn’t work than that parent would def need waaaayyy more than 150 dollars to be able to do anything for the child. I do agree that if you can get away with not sending child to daycare is ideal it’s just not an option for many.

[bamesjond0069]

@annabananna yes but having the child is a privilege. I can understand paying support to the parent to watch the child but why for a stranger? Thats a you problem. The child legit costs food clothes and a few additional expenses. If the one parent doesn't have a suitable schedule or arrangements thats their specific problem and it ought to be the cost of having the privilege of having the child. Think... situation A the parent w custody has no job, no childcare expense and lives in public housing. Situation B the parent w custody is a CEO working 50hrs a week and has daycare and part time nanny. In either case the child does not cost any more or any less to raise. The cost is simply for convenience for the parent. The one child doesn't actually cost whatever, 15k more to raise per year than the other.

[ragooo8]

@annabananna yeah there's mothers paying for daycare rather than let their ex have more custody so they can work.

[NamerOfStars]

Sort of- 50/50 custody should be the default, yes, but it's not like there aren't truly awful people out there who SHOULD be separated from their kids. Do you want violent, drug-addicted psychopaths to have exclusive access to their kids, even if it's only half the time? Installing it as the default is good; making it the ONLY option would be horrible.

[ragooo8]

True but many baby mamma's should be separated from kids.

[Lucy-123]

@ragooo8 That's what they just said, that in some situations that should happen.

[UdontNeedtoknow]

If I didn't have to pay alimony and child support. my ex would be working and paying taxes. Fact is that I don't mind limited child support if it is realistic and not $1800 a month. No one spends that kind of money on kids when there still married. Alimony is just extortion plain and simple.
Honestly, the solution to all of this is to just make divorce illegal again. If you did that. a lot of families would still be together since they would HAVE TO find a way to live in peace with one another. If it's bad enough one of them will leave and never come back. Money or not.
For profit divorce has killed marriage and you can blame feminist women for that.

[nonyabeezwax132342]

I agree with most of what you said here.