Strollerderby

But... if you're out of work and you're living with your children, you can at least modify how much money you spend on them.  You'd probably have to unless your normal spending habits are extremely bare-bones.  And in that case, no one's keeping track of how much you'd 'normally' spend on them so that you can pay it back when you're employed.  You'd cut back, and when you were employed again, you'd step back up to the old level of spending and be done with it.  If you're out of work and you're a non-custodial parent with child support to pay, you *can't* do that, because you have to continue to send exactly the same amount as you did when you were still employed.  That just doesn't make any sense to me.    

It seems to me like there ought to be some flexibility in child support payments when a parent hits economic hardship, just as there is flexibility in how much we spend on our kids when we live with them and have tough times.  A non-custodial parent who is unemployed ought not to be let off the hook altogether, but the amount should be modified to cover needs and not wants, and it should be realistic about exactly how much blood you can get from a turnip.  I don't see how insisting people do something they can't do and punishing them when they can't helps anybody.

This isn't a personal issue for me, I'm happily married to the father of my kids, but I've seen it affect friends and it always seems weird to me that people who can't pay are treated exactly like those who can pay but don't.  The second group sucks, the first group is just stuck.  

Unfortunately there are always a few bad apples that ruin it for everyone else.  There are people out there who would just not get a job to avoid those payments if that was an option.  They would take under-the-table jobs to make enough money for themselves but nothing the court could take.

Is it fair?  No.  If our legal system wasn't so clogged or if mediation was mandated, I think that the payment amounts could be temporarily adjusted as needed fairly easily but that isn't the case. Definitely a no-win situation all around.

I watched this first hand with my parents when I was 17.  My father is in construction so work isn't always available.  He's a hard worker and I know first hand that in my family how hard you work is a measure of who you are.  My father taught me that.....time and time again :)

After my parents split, bitterly I might add, my dad got laid off.  This is pretty routine in the world of construction.  When my Dad was on unemployment he was getting a certain amount of money each week.  That amount was $50 less than his child support payments each week.  Child Support took his unemployment checks and would basically write themselves an IOU for the balance expecting to collect later on.  So not only was my father not getting a dime but was in the hole $50 each week he was out of work.

In order to support himself and pay his bills he had to borrow money off his family.  Yeah, that's what family is for but it makes a stressful time even more stressful.  And it wasn't just stressful for him but for the whole family.  Each weekend you could just see the strain on him.  I was 17 but kids always know when something's up.  Why do parents always think the kids are blissfully ignorant?  

Parents are equally responsible for supporting their children.  In my book that man should have been able to approach his ex with his problem.  As parents they should both put the kids first and find a solution.  That solution isn't always a financial situation.  Sometimes you have to remember that this person is important to your child and you can't put a $ amount on that connection.  When work is available again then he can catch up.  

BUT I also know that divorced people very rarely can put their differences, you know the ones they couldn't work out enough to stay married, aside to do the "right" thing.  They are usually still struggling with the same issues (ie communication, finances, power) divorced because they never found closure for their relationship.  

That's just been my experience.

There's always a better way. I fight for fathers's right but I also understand mothers who are forced to raise kids on their own. I know my mom was and still is a single mom.

In my book I teach fathers how to reduce their payments but also express how important a father is to his child. I'm a proud father to my kids and I wouldn't change that for the world.

www.childsupportscam.com

I don't know, honestly, I'd rather my ex didn't pay child support, if only he'd offer my daughter some more attention in other ways. Child support doesn't give hugs. And if he was laid off, he would have plenty of time to get the hugging done. As a parent, I'd make sacrifices to pick up the slack while the father of my child was going through a rough time.

The first option should always be a 50/50 split of time with the child. The state should not be involved with a parents time or resources. Unless they receive welfare, why do they care?

Each parent should be responsible for the standard of living for the child that they can afford. My gut is that without child support, many mothers (and some fathers) would properly give the child to the other parent.