Anonymous wrote:This is absolutely the right thing to do. Many countries have punitive legislation which overwhelmingly affects the father and prevent them to support another family. Divorce should not be a career.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/world/europe/in-italy-economy-and-law-leave-many-single-fathers-broke-and-homeless.html
This seems to be from before: "Children must be supported until they become financially independent (25% of the annual income per one child is generally considered an average support amount)."

That was total insanity which probably was the dominant factor behind Italy's 1.3 fertility rate. Single mothers with one child and father unable to have another go at building a family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a ton of divorced dads, single dads, a few widowed dads, and a few gay dads and they are very involved, great parents. I am glad we are moving away from the idea that men shoudln't be an equal parent.

Ideas are lovely, but it has to be practiced.
Head over to the relationship forum to find out how involved many fathers choose to be.

Anonymous wrote:This is absolutely the right thing to do. Many countries have punitive legislation which overwhelmingly affects the father and prevent them to support another family. Divorce should not be a career.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/world/europe/in-italy-economy-and-law-leave-many-single-fathers-broke-and-homeless.html
This seems to be from before: "Children must be supported until they become financially independent (25% of the annual income per one child is generally considered an average support amount)."

That was total insanity which probably was the dominant factor behind Italy's 1.3 fertility rate. Single mothers with one child and father unable to have another go at building a family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Summary: the law proposes the end of child support, equal custody, no bad mouthing the other parent, and each parents covers the expenses of the child when they are talking care of them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/2018/09/18/italys-proposed-new-divorce-law-would-turn-back-clock-years-womens-rights-critics-say/

This is scary. So the single parent who is caring for the kids has to pay ALL the costs while the parent is foot-loose and fancy free? That is a horrible injustice to the children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This law will destitute SAHMs and make it financially hard for them to divorce.

On the contrary I think it might give women a kick in the rear. More than half of Italy’s women don’t work outside the home. HALF. And that’s not uncommon throughout the EU.

What is wrong with that? Their husbands want them home nurturing the most important asset of their lives, the children.

Your children are not an asset. And providing for yourself and your children like a functional grown up is not mutually exclusive to nurturing your children. Unless of course you are a absolute ding bat who can't handle the basics of life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This law will destitute SAHMs and make it financially hard for them to divorce.

On the contrary I think it might give women a kick in the rear. More than half of Italy’s women don’t work outside the home. HALF. And that’s not uncommon throughout the EU.

I know this isn't a popular opinion in some circles, but it never seemed fair to me that a woman who stayed home with the kids and never had a career outside the home would receive alimony and a woman who worked outside the home and contributed financially would not (and in some cases be required to pay alimony to her ex). So, if a man is willing to support a woman who doesn't work outside the home, he gets punished for that by being required to support her the rest of her life/some lengthy period of time? I it when the kids are babies, but if a woman chooses not to establish/re-establish a career after the kids are in school, that is a risk she takes.

What about women who are dealing with special needs children? Caring for sick or elderly parents/ family? There are many reasons families need a spouse to stay home. That person shouldn’t be “at risk” .
My FIL is a hugely successful businessman, but only by the grace of a wife who picked up the slack everywhere else. They aren’t divorced, but you better believe she’d have earned every penny of alimony.

But that's not the majority of stay at home spouses, the ones dealing with special needs kids. Of course she should pick up the slack. What else is she going to do?

Anonymous wrote:I know a ton of divorced dads, single dads, a few widowed dads, and a few gay dads and they are very involved, great parents. I am glad we are moving away from the idea that men shoudln't be an equal parent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This law will destitute SAHMs and make it financially hard for them to divorce.

On the contrary I think it might give women a kick in the rear. More than half of Italy’s women don’t work outside the home. HALF. And that’s not uncommon throughout the EU.

I know this isn't a popular opinion in some circles, but it never seemed fair to me that a woman who stayed home with the kids and never had a career outside the home would receive alimony and a woman who worked outside the home and contributed financially would not (and in some cases be required to pay alimony to her ex). So, if a man is willing to support a woman who doesn't work outside the home, he gets punished for that by being required to support her the rest of her life/some lengthy period of time? I it when the kids are babies, but if a woman chooses not to establish/re-establish a career after the kids are in school, that is a risk she takes.

What about women who are dealing with special needs children? Caring for sick or elderly parents/ family? There are many reasons families need a spouse to stay home. That person shouldn’t be “at risk” .
My FIL is a hugely successful businessman, but only by the grace of a wife who picked up the slack everywhere else. They aren’t divorced, but you better believe she’d have earned every penny of alimony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This law will destitute SAHMs and make it financially hard for them to divorce.

On the contrary I think it might give women a kick in the rear. More than half of Italy’s women don’t work outside the home. HALF. And that’s not uncommon throughout the EU.

I know this isn't a popular opinion in some circles, but it never seemed fair to me that a woman who stayed home with the kids and never had a career outside the home would receive alimony and a woman who worked outside the home and contributed financially would not (and in some cases be required to pay alimony to her ex). So, if a man is willing to support a woman who doesn't work outside the home, he gets punished for that by being required to support her the rest of her life/some lengthy period of time? I get it when the kids are babies, but if a woman chooses not to establish/re-establish a career after the kids are in school, that is a risk she takes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This law will destitute SAHMs and make it financially hard for them to divorce.

On the contrary I think it might give women a kick in the rear. More than half of Italy’s women don’t work outside the home. HALF. And that’s not uncommon throughout the EU.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I would have been fine with Dad paying directly. If he actually paid and was held responsible for not doing so. He was responsible for a few direct expenses and couldn’t follow through:
— 1/2 of daycare meals. A few times a year, he would not pay it on time and two things would happen: 1) a late fee was added to the overall account which was in my name and 2) I had to provide a bagged breakfast and lunch for DC although Dad got credit towards less CS for providing those meals.
— flexible spending account to cover copays since medical insurance for DC came out of my paycheck. He’d regularly drain it to buy prescription sports goggles for himself but not tell me until I was at the ER with DC. Finally, one year, he just forgot to set it up at open enrollment. Guess who covers all health expenses now although he still gets credit against his CS for $350 in FSA.
— 1/2 of school supplies and uniforms. He bought the wrong stuff routinely, would refuse to exchange it or give me the receipts to exchange it. I ended up replacing it to satisfy the school’s requirements. So technically, he spent the money, but DC couldn’t benefit from the items and again, I had to take funds from other things to cover his responsibility.

Now imagine that all his financial responsibility to DC was paid directly. Who do you think would end up covering all of it when he “forgot?

All of things you quoted are incidentals that vary week-to-week or even day-to-day. Why didn't you just set it up so that he pays 75%/85%/100% of school tuition, you pay 25%/15%/0% and all incidentals related to every day things while the child is in your care? Including uniforms, daily school meals, supplies etc.

School fees are due at the beginning of term or year and they can be set up as direct withdrawals. No conversations on 'did you do this'.

Why would anyone think that a deadbeat who struggled to pay a few small bills would actually pay one big one?