50/50 is terrible for kids! Why does this nonsense persist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 has been an absolute godsend for a couple of women of my acquaintance who finally have the time to pursue career, meaningful and healthy relationships, and their own health and well being.

Unfortunately the instances where a father fights for 50/50 to lower child support and then constantly flakes should be dealt with more harshly by the courts and penalized per diem in child support payments.

Your constant Dad bashing is pathetic. Many moms fight for full custody to get maximum child support and then don't spend it on the kids. It goes both ways. Its pathetic that the courts have zero accountability for child support and keep Dad's out of kids' lives as the other parent often manipulates the kids and situation for their best interests.

It’s not Dad bashing. I have nothing but respect for the men who seek 50/50 and actually take 50% without excuses or constant flakiness.

The ones that realize their weekend includes Super Bowl Sunday and expect to be able to either switch or drop the kids back with mom by 2pm tomorrow? Nothing but contempt.

Yes you are. Same post every time.

Do you think there should be consequences for men who don’t take their 50% if that’s what they sought in court?

Yes, there are consequences, they lose custody. However, there are no consequences if the Mom's don't spend the child support on the kids.

If she’s buying food and clothes and providing a place to sleep, she’s spending child support on the kids. Or are you claiming it’s common for people to starve their kids, not give the clothes, and make them sleep outside?

Or, what if her boyfriend pays the rent and the kids are going without clothes and they are on food stamps....

Going without clothes meaning the kids are barefoot and naked or meaning in your omniscience you don’t think their clothes justify the child support? Even if someone else pays rent, internet, heat and electricity aren’t free. Food stamp and other benefit adjudications take child support into account so obviously she’s not getting very much if she still qualifies.

Again, if they aren't paying the rent and utilities that should not be taken into child support calculations as you are saying that is what child support is for. The kids often went without proper clothing and shoes too small. And, no, food stamps and other benefits did not take into consideration the child support as if they did she wouldn't have qualified. More than likely she lied about the child support as no way she'd get food stamps and medical otherwise, especially dad had the kids on full medical coverage.

Surprise, some Mom's lie and don't use the money appropriately.

So, I call troll here-they absolutely check this when a parent applies for aid. Child support orders are court records. If this Mom 'lied' it must have been decades ago before computers were in wide use. Also, one can easily report suspected food stamp fraud. In fact, it's as easy as posting on DCUM

I really think there is one, or a few, posters in this thread whose last interactions with the family court system was in 1985 or so.

+1

If the dad had the information that she lied to receive benefits, he would have reported it.

And to be clear, a mother of two in Maryland only qualifies for food stamps if her total income is less than $30,000 annually. So if some dad is paying so little in child support that her income is under $30,000 it’s entirely possible she would struggle to get shoes for her kids.

If Dad is paying $1K-1500K, which is pretty common, she'd not have to earn very much to get $30K. In this situation, Mom wasn't paying the rent, her boyfriend/AP was. And, that money should have been spent on the kids.

Apparently she wasn’t earning that much or she wouldn’t have qualified for public assistance, so dad was likely not contributing anything like $1000-$1500/ month or she wouldn’t have qualified.

Who pays the rent is irrelevant, and, you have know way to know what the cohabitating couple did about joint finances. A car payment, a kid who needs therapy, one or two extra curricular activities, food…less than $30,000 gets you very little in this area.

It's not always in this area and if you aren't paying rent, on food stamps, free medical care, then your only expenses are your and the kids needs. When you get food stamps, you get Medicaid as well so the mom was double dipping with Medicaid and Dad's private insurance for the kids and these kids were not in any activities or therapies. Both would have been nice. And, yes, you do have a way of knowing if that's the excuse they are using not to pay the other ex-wife child support for his kids. But, obviously, that is ok with you that his kids suffer because of her and she's getting AP income, her income and Dad's income plus public benefits. But, right, Mom can never do wrong.

That's not double dipping...it's legal to cover a child both with a private plan and Medicaid, if they qualify.

Why doesn't Dad have 50/50? Why doesn't he alleviate his kids 'suffering'? Why doesn't he put them in activities or therapies if needed? If he had the kids 50/50, and paid for their insurance-he would not be paying any 1.5k cs! Unless he is an incredibly high earner.

I mean also why doesn’t he buy them shoes and clothes if they were seriously going without?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kids should get to stay in the primary home, the home they grew up in. I agree with OP that 50/50 sucks for kids. All of you that do it can convince yourself your kids are fine with it, but they’re not. They don’t have options though so they have to go along with it.

This should be mandatory.

Are you a 5 year old?

Nope, just someone who had to deal with a selfish farther who seemed to enjoy forcing me to travel all the time.

Or, maybe you were a selfish kid who didn't realize your Dad was just trying to be your father and spend time with you. If he refused to see you, you'd be complaining more. You had a loving father who was interested in a relationship with you and you refused it. Your friends who you probably have seen in many years were not more important than your Dad.

If he were interested in a relationship with me he wouldn't have caused a divorce by cheating and he wouldn't have move so far away, I do still see those friends frequently and they a far more important to me than he will ever be.

You don't sound like a very nice person. He was trying. His cheating had nothing to do with his parenting.

I'm usually not so aggressive but the subject of divorce can easily set me off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 has been an absolute godsend for a couple of women of my acquaintance who finally have the time to pursue career, meaningful and healthy relationships, and their own health and well being.

Unfortunately the instances where a father fights for 50/50 to lower child support and then constantly flakes should be dealt with more harshly by the courts and penalized per diem in child support payments.

Your constant Dad bashing is pathetic. Many moms fight for full custody to get maximum child support and then don't spend it on the kids. It goes both ways. Its pathetic that the courts have zero accountability for child support and keep Dad's out of kids' lives as the other parent often manipulates the kids and situation for their best interests.

It’s not Dad bashing. I have nothing but respect for the men who seek 50/50 and actually take 50% without excuses or constant flakiness.

The ones that realize their weekend includes Super Bowl Sunday and expect to be able to either switch or drop the kids back with mom by 2pm tomorrow? Nothing but contempt.

Yes you are. Same post every time.

Do you think there should be consequences for men who don’t take their 50% if that’s what they sought in court?

Yes, there are consequences, they lose custody. However, there are no consequences if the Mom's don't spend the child support on the kids.

If she’s buying food and clothes and providing a place to sleep, she’s spending child support on the kids. Or are you claiming it’s common for people to starve their kids, not give the clothes, and make them sleep outside?

Or, what if her boyfriend pays the rent and the kids are going without clothes and they are on food stamps....

Going without clothes meaning the kids are barefoot and naked or meaning in your omniscience you don’t think their clothes justify the child support? Even if someone else pays rent, internet, heat and electricity aren’t free. Food stamp and other benefit adjudications take child support into account so obviously she’s not getting very much if she still qualifies.

Again, if they aren't paying the rent and utilities that should not be taken into child support calculations as you are saying that is what child support is for. The kids often went without proper clothing and shoes too small. And, no, food stamps and other benefits did not take into consideration the child support as if they did she wouldn't have qualified. More than likely she lied about the child support as no way she'd get food stamps and medical otherwise, especially dad had the kids on full medical coverage.

Surprise, some Mom's lie and don't use the money appropriately.

So, I call troll here-they absolutely check this when a parent applies for aid. Child support orders are court records. If this Mom 'lied' it must have been decades ago before computers were in wide use. Also, one can easily report suspected food stamp fraud. In fact, it's as easy as posting on DCUM

I really think there is one, or a few, posters in this thread whose last interactions with the family court system was in 1985 or so.

+1

If the dad had the information that she lied to receive benefits, he would have reported it.

And to be clear, a mother of two in Maryland only qualifies for food stamps if her total income is less than $30,000 annually. So if some dad is paying so little in child support that her income is under $30,000 it’s entirely possible she would struggle to get shoes for her kids.

If Dad is paying $1K-1500K, which is pretty common, she'd not have to earn very much to get $30K. In this situation, Mom wasn't paying the rent, her boyfriend/AP was. And, that money should have been spent on the kids.

Apparently she wasn’t earning that much or she wouldn’t have qualified for public assistance, so dad was likely not contributing anything like $1000-$1500/ month or she wouldn’t have qualified.

Who pays the rent is irrelevant, and, you have know way to know what the cohabitating couple did about joint finances. A car payment, a kid who needs therapy, one or two extra curricular activities, food…less than $30,000 gets you very little in this area.

It's not always in this area and if you aren't paying rent, on food stamps, free medical care, then your only expenses are your and the kids needs. When you get food stamps, you get Medicaid as well so the mom was double dipping with Medicaid and Dad's private insurance for the kids and these kids were not in any activities or therapies. Both would have been nice. And, yes, you do have a way of knowing if that's the excuse they are using not to pay the other ex-wife child support for his kids. But, obviously, that is ok with you that his kids suffer because of her and she's getting AP income, her income and Dad's income plus public benefits. But, right, Mom can never do wrong.

That's not double dipping...it's legal to cover a child both with a private plan and Medicaid, if they qualify.

Why doesn't Dad have 50/50? Why doesn't he alleviate his kids 'suffering'? Why doesn't he put them in activities or therapies if needed? If he had the kids 50/50, and paid for their insurance-he would not be paying any 1.5k cs! Unless he is an incredibly high earner.

I mean also why doesn’t he buy them shoes and clothes if they were seriously going without?

He did, he sent them regularly, the same brands/styles mom would send the kids in or say the kids wore and the kids claimed they would never get the stuff despite it being sent with delivery confirmation. When they visited, they got sent home with a full new wardrobe that would disappear too. Though, every once in a while, it would guilt Mom into buying a few new things for them. He'd also offer to pay directly to the school/activity for any extracurricular but mom would demand cash only. And, he'd ask for a list of what the kids need with sizes/brands to purchase any equipment involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 has been an absolute godsend for a couple of women of my acquaintance who finally have the time to pursue career, meaningful and healthy relationships, and their own health and well being.

Unfortunately the instances where a father fights for 50/50 to lower child support and then constantly flakes should be dealt with more harshly by the courts and penalized per diem in child support payments.

Your constant Dad bashing is pathetic. Many moms fight for full custody to get maximum child support and then don't spend it on the kids. It goes both ways. Its pathetic that the courts have zero accountability for child support and keep Dad's out of kids' lives as the other parent often manipulates the kids and situation for their best interests.

It’s not Dad bashing. I have nothing but respect for the men who seek 50/50 and actually take 50% without excuses or constant flakiness.

The ones that realize their weekend includes Super Bowl Sunday and expect to be able to either switch or drop the kids back with mom by 2pm tomorrow? Nothing but contempt.

Yes you are. Same post every time.

Do you think there should be consequences for men who don’t take their 50% if that’s what they sought in court?

Yes, there are consequences, they lose custody. However, there are no consequences if the Mom's don't spend the child support on the kids.

If she’s buying food and clothes and providing a place to sleep, she’s spending child support on the kids. Or are you claiming it’s common for people to starve their kids, not give the clothes, and make them sleep outside?

Or, what if her boyfriend pays the rent and the kids are going without clothes and they are on food stamps....

Going without clothes meaning the kids are barefoot and naked or meaning in your omniscience you don’t think their clothes justify the child support? Even if someone else pays rent, internet, heat and electricity aren’t free. Food stamp and other benefit adjudications take child support into account so obviously she’s not getting very much if she still qualifies.

Again, if they aren't paying the rent and utilities that should not be taken into child support calculations as you are saying that is what child support is for. The kids often went without proper clothing and shoes too small. And, no, food stamps and other benefits did not take into consideration the child support as if they did she wouldn't have qualified. More than likely she lied about the child support as no way she'd get food stamps and medical otherwise, especially dad had the kids on full medical coverage.

Surprise, some Mom's lie and don't use the money appropriately.

So, I call troll here-they absolutely check this when a parent applies for aid. Child support orders are court records. If this Mom 'lied' it must have been decades ago before computers were in wide use. Also, one can easily report suspected food stamp fraud. In fact, it's as easy as posting on DCUM

I really think there is one, or a few, posters in this thread whose last interactions with the family court system was in 1985 or so.

+1

If the dad had the information that she lied to receive benefits, he would have reported it.

And to be clear, a mother of two in Maryland only qualifies for food stamps if her total income is less than $30,000 annually. So if some dad is paying so little in child support that her income is under $30,000 it’s entirely possible she would struggle to get shoes for her kids.

If Dad is paying $1K-1500K, which is pretty common, she'd not have to earn very much to get $30K. In this situation, Mom wasn't paying the rent, her boyfriend/AP was. And, that money should have been spent on the kids.

Apparently she wasn’t earning that much or she wouldn’t have qualified for public assistance, so dad was likely not contributing anything like $1000-$1500/ month or she wouldn’t have qualified.

Who pays the rent is irrelevant, and, you have know way to know what the cohabitating couple did about joint finances. A car payment, a kid who needs therapy, one or two extra curricular activities, food…less than $30,000 gets you very little in this area.

It's not always in this area and if you aren't paying rent, on food stamps, free medical care, then your only expenses are your and the kids needs. When you get food stamps, you get Medicaid as well so the mom was double dipping with Medicaid and Dad's private insurance for the kids and these kids were not in any activities or therapies. Both would have been nice. And, yes, you do have a way of knowing if that's the excuse they are using not to pay the other ex-wife child support for his kids. But, obviously, that is ok with you that his kids suffer because of her and she's getting AP income, her income and Dad's income plus public benefits. But, right, Mom can never do wrong.

That's not double dipping...it's legal to cover a child both with a private plan and Medicaid, if they qualify.

Why doesn't Dad have 50/50? Why doesn't he alleviate his kids 'suffering'? Why doesn't he put them in activities or therapies if needed? If he had the kids 50/50, and paid for their insurance-he would not be paying any 1.5k cs! Unless he is an incredibly high earner.

I mean also why doesn’t he buy them shoes and clothes if they were seriously going without?

He did, he sent them regularly, the same brands/styles mom would send the kids in or say the kids wore and the kids claimed they would never get the stuff despite it being sent with delivery confirmation. When they visited, they got sent home with a full new wardrobe that would disappear too. Though, every once in a while, it would guilt Mom into buying a few new things for them. He'd also offer to pay directly to the school/activity for any extracurricular but mom would demand cash only. And, he'd ask for a list of what the kids need with sizes/brands to purchase any equipment involved.

Ok, if all of this is true, why didn’t he get 50/50 custody rather than let his children go without clothes and shoes?

And…you keep saying “him/he”. Are you his second wife or his mother?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP what is the alternative?

One home during the week and school year.

Other home during some weekends and summer.

50 -50 is for the guilty parents. If the parents cared at all about the kids they wouldn't put them through 50-50.

I agree 50/50 is for guilty parents and parents dodging a bigger child support obligation. It is unhealthy for kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP what is the alternative?

One home during the week and school year.

Other home during some weekends and summer.

50 -50 is for the guilty parents. If the parents cared at all about the kids they wouldn't put them through 50-50.

I agree 50/50 is for guilty parents and parents dodging a bigger child support obligation. It is unhealthy for kids

Summer is usually 4-6 weeks, so summer and a few weekends isn't a parenting relationship. That's a selfish parent who doesn't want 50-50 because the child support is more important to them than anything. Child support is not a payment to the other parent for caretaking. It's for the child's expenses and if its 50-50 both parents have expenses in their home. Usually one parent refuses 50-50 because of child support and they don't want to financially support their child so they know blocking custody is the way to get paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP what is the alternative?

One home during the week and school year.

Other home during some weekends and summer.

50 -50 is for the guilty parents. If the parents cared at all about the kids they wouldn't put them through 50-50.

I agree 50/50 is for guilty parents and parents dodging a bigger child support obligation. It is unhealthy for kids

Yup, those awful guilty parents who make sure their kids have 2 active parents in their lives even though the parents aren't in a relationship anymore

PP, agreeing with your own nonsense posts doesn't make them less nonsense!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not ideal. We make it work by spending a lot of money ensuring the child has two homes, not no home. If she gets something, she gets two of them. She never has to bring anything back and forth except her schoolwork.

This works if you aren’t lower income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 has been an absolute godsend for a couple of women of my acquaintance who finally have the time to pursue career, meaningful and healthy relationships, and their own health and well being.

Unfortunately the instances where a father fights for 50/50 to lower child support and then constantly flakes should be dealt with more harshly by the courts and penalized per diem in child support payments.

Your constant Dad bashing is pathetic. Many moms fight for full custody to get maximum child support and then don't spend it on the kids. It goes both ways. Its pathetic that the courts have zero accountability for child support and keep Dad's out of kids' lives as the other parent often manipulates the kids and situation for their best interests.

It’s not Dad bashing. I have nothing but respect for the men who seek 50/50 and actually take 50% without excuses or constant flakiness.

The ones that realize their weekend includes Super Bowl Sunday and expect to be able to either switch or drop the kids back with mom by 2pm tomorrow? Nothing but contempt.

Yes you are. Same post every time.

Do you think there should be consequences for men who don’t take their 50% if that’s what they sought in court?

Yes, there are consequences, they lose custody. However, there are no consequences if the Mom's don't spend the child support on the kids.

If she’s buying food and clothes and providing a place to sleep, she’s spending child support on the kids. Or are you claiming it’s common for people to starve their kids, not give the clothes, and make them sleep outside?

Or, what if her boyfriend pays the rent and the kids are going without clothes and they are on food stamps....

Going without clothes meaning the kids are barefoot and naked or meaning in your omniscience you don’t think their clothes justify the child support? Even if someone else pays rent, internet, heat and electricity aren’t free. Food stamp and other benefit adjudications take child support into account so obviously she’s not getting very much if she still qualifies.

Again, if they aren't paying the rent and utilities that should not be taken into child support calculations as you are saying that is what child support is for. The kids often went without proper clothing and shoes too small. And, no, food stamps and other benefits did not take into consideration the child support as if they did she wouldn't have qualified. More than likely she lied about the child support as no way she'd get food stamps and medical otherwise, especially dad had the kids on full medical coverage.

Surprise, some Mom's lie and don't use the money appropriately.

So, I call troll here-they absolutely check this when a parent applies for aid. Child support orders are court records. If this Mom 'lied' it must have been decades ago before computers were in wide use. Also, one can easily report suspected food stamp fraud. In fact, it's as easy as posting on DCUM

I really think there is one, or a few, posters in this thread whose last interactions with the family court system was in 1985 or so.

They can check, but they don't check for private custody cases, just the ones that go through the Office of Child Support. There are two different systems. No, you don't report someone for food stamp fraud as that impacts the child. The systems for the private child support cases are not linked as the garnishment gets sent from the employer or the NCP sends a check directly.

This...is word salad.

As I said before-someone is posting from decades past.

Yo clearly don’t get the system. There are two ways through the court to get child support. It’s only tracked if you go through the office of child support, which is always a good idea and far better for ncps as then they don’t have to deal with the drama.

Luckily for you, it seems that you’re the one who doesn’t get the system for applying for food stamps/Medicaid. You have to disclose income from child support. If you are not receiving child support you have to list the father and the state will come after him for child support before they will give the mother food stamps. So no, some poor suffering non-custodial dad isn’t just nobly not reporting his children’s to the state for fraud, they would be coming after him for the money.

Not if the mother lies. No decent father would report it. No, they rarely come after the Dad. They don't have enough staff for that.

False false false. They ABOSLUTELY go after the other parent (not always Dad) if one parent is getting food stamps/aid. This must be the poster who is posting from the distant past.

No they don't. Most social service offices have a few fraud investigators for the entire state at best. They aren't going to go after a mom except if it's extreme. It's very very rare. You really don't think a mom would lie about getting child support. They can only track what goes through the office of child support, not what is paid directly or through garnishment.

What idiot pays CS in cash? He should be able to produce canceled checks or money order stubs. A money order is $0.35 cents from places like 7-11, Walmart, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do 50-50 and we as parents shuffle Around

This is the only way to do it. The parents who make the decision to break up the family should be the ones doing the shuffling around.

until one parent re-marries. It may still work while there is only a new spouse, but once there are new siblings it stops being an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think it’s better for a kid to have nothing more than a trivial relationship with one parent?

Better than having trivial lives with no real home.

I disagree, as someone who had a trivial weekends only relationship with 1 parent.

That's the thing, there is no guarantee that spending extra time with that parent would have made the relationship less trivial. Not every kid and parent develop a good relationship even if they live full time in same house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not ideal. We make it work by spending a lot of money ensuring the child has two homes, not no home. If she gets something, she gets two of them. She never has to bring anything back and forth except her schoolwork.

This works if you aren’t lower income.

I'm not lower income, but modest. My DC does not carry anything except their school backpack. We do exchange the iPad, but if they were older they could keep it in the bag. They wear their coats so that goes with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think it’s better for a kid to have nothing more than a trivial relationship with one parent?

Better than having trivial lives with no real home.

I disagree, as someone who had a trivial weekends only relationship with 1 parent.

That's the thing, there is no guarantee that spending extra time with that parent would have made the relationship less trivial. Not every kid and parent develop a good relationship even if they live full time in same house.

Except with divorce you aren’t giving that child the time to have the relationship if you only see that parent 4 days a month with every other weekend. You just assume that the relationship isn’t wanted or valued by the child who may feel hurt and rejected and not realize it is the mom blocking the relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 has been an absolute godsend for a couple of women of my acquaintance who finally have the time to pursue career, meaningful and healthy relationships, and their own health and well being.

Unfortunately the instances where a father fights for 50/50 to lower child support and then constantly flakes should be dealt with more harshly by the courts and penalized per diem in child support payments.

Your constant Dad bashing is pathetic. Many moms fight for full custody to get maximum child support and then don't spend it on the kids. It goes both ways. Its pathetic that the courts have zero accountability for child support and keep Dad's out of kids' lives as the other parent often manipulates the kids and situation for their best interests.

It’s not Dad bashing. I have nothing but respect for the men who seek 50/50 and actually take 50% without excuses or constant flakiness.

The ones that realize their weekend includes Super Bowl Sunday and expect to be able to either switch or drop the kids back with mom by 2pm tomorrow? Nothing but contempt.

Yes you are. Same post every time.

Do you think there should be consequences for men who don’t take their 50% if that’s what they sought in court?

Yes, there are consequences, they lose custody. However, there are no consequences if the Mom's don't spend the child support on the kids.

If she’s buying food and clothes and providing a place to sleep, she’s spending child support on the kids. Or are you claiming it’s common for people to starve their kids, not give the clothes, and make them sleep outside?

Or, what if her boyfriend pays the rent and the kids are going without clothes and they are on food stamps....

Going without clothes meaning the kids are barefoot and naked or meaning in your omniscience you don’t think their clothes justify the child support? Even if someone else pays rent, internet, heat and electricity aren’t free. Food stamp and other benefit adjudications take child support into account so obviously she’s not getting very much if she still qualifies.

Again, if they aren't paying the rent and utilities that should not be taken into child support calculations as you are saying that is what child support is for. The kids often went without proper clothing and shoes too small. And, no, food stamps and other benefits did not take into consideration the child support as if they did she wouldn't have qualified. More than likely she lied about the child support as no way she'd get food stamps and medical otherwise, especially dad had the kids on full medical coverage.

Surprise, some Mom's lie and don't use the money appropriately.

So, I call troll here-they absolutely check this when a parent applies for aid. Child support orders are court records. If this Mom 'lied' it must have been decades ago before computers were in wide use. Also, one can easily report suspected food stamp fraud. In fact, it's as easy as posting on DCUM

I really think there is one, or a few, posters in this thread whose last interactions with the family court system was in 1985 or so.

They can check, but they don't check for private custody cases, just the ones that go through the Office of Child Support. There are two different systems. No, you don't report someone for food stamp fraud as that impacts the child. The systems for the private child support cases are not linked as the garnishment gets sent from the employer or the NCP sends a check directly.

This...is word salad.

As I said before-someone is posting from decades past.

Yo clearly don’t get the system. There are two ways through the court to get child support. It’s only tracked if you go through the office of child support, which is always a good idea and far better for ncps as then they don’t have to deal with the drama.

Luckily for you, it seems that you’re the one who doesn’t get the system for applying for food stamps/Medicaid. You have to disclose income from child support. If you are not receiving child support you have to list the father and the state will come after him for child support before they will give the mother food stamps. So no, some poor suffering non-custodial dad isn’t just nobly not reporting his children’s to the state for fraud, they would be coming after him for the money.

Not if the mother lies. No decent father would report it. No, they rarely come after the Dad. They don't have enough staff for that.

False false false. They ABOSLUTELY go after the other parent (not always Dad) if one parent is getting food stamps/aid. This must be the poster who is posting from the distant past.

No they don't. Most social service offices have a few fraud investigators for the entire state at best. They aren't going to go after a mom except if it's extreme. It's very very rare. You really don't think a mom would lie about getting child support. They can only track what goes through the office of child support, not what is paid directly or through garnishment.

What idiot pays CS in cash? He should be able to produce canceled checks or money order stubs. A money order is $0.35 cents from places like 7-11, Walmart, etc.

Never pay with a money order as you can lose the tracker or they can claim it was for something else. Garnishment through the child support office is best. But, the discussion was about what government programs can see as payment and they can only see what goes through the child support office. If you go to court and pay via cash, check or money order mom can lie and say it was for something else. My spouses ex did that in court and lied about the checks and garnishments. She then thought she’d be cleaver and go through the child support office as she did not like the award judgement modification which was modified at her filing and got made that the child support office often sent the checks late and would not send them early like they were when paid via check.

Always pay through the child support office. Always pay for activities and extras directly if the parent will not use the money they demand on what is demanded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do 50-50 and we as parents shuffle Around

This is the only way to do it. The parents who make the decision to break up the family should be the ones doing the shuffling around.

until one parent re-marries. It may still work while there is only a new spouse, but once there are new siblings it stops being an option.

Or, if the one parent, the custodial parent leaves to be with the AP. Then what, the AP moves into the house every other week? Sone divorces are messy.