There is no doubt that a child needs to be taken care of, but do yall think the current system goes about it the right way? Now I don't have any kids, but lately I been hearing a lot of guys who pay child support claim its a double standard where the father gets no right. That they can take money out of their account without visitation rights being established. Like this one guy I know said he had to pay for an attorney just to see his kid, even though he never missed a payment of child support. So do it need to be tweaked or is it a fine the way it is? Is it really a double standard?

The most important thing is that the child be taken care of, so any relationship between support and visitation should be loose at best.

Good point. People have said that the child support put more emphasis on money instead of relationships between a child and a non-custodial parent.

That is a good point. The child support system no doubt focuses on money. I had a friend that shared with me what he was paying in child support and I was surprised. My kids could live like kings on that kind of cash. Funny thing is he was in a lower income bracket than myself. What really supports a child is time not cash.

http://www.lamebook.com/winsurance

Sorry, this was too prime NOT to post here.

Upper90 wrote: http://www.lamebook.com/winsurance

Sorry, this was too prime NOT to post here.

lol classic

Upper90 wrote: http://www.lamebook.com/winsurance

Sorry, this was too prime NOT to post here.

lol that was funny!

It's a raw deal, but its to keep the deadbeats from getting out of responsibility for the kid. In a normal healthy situation with two intelligent people, its not needed because the father will be there to help out. But its slanted towards the fathers who don't give a shit, so the good guys get screwed.

My prenup will include provisions that prevent me from paying any child support, and you can take that to the bank.

It's all effed up. In short, child support money should go to a bank account for the child when they turn 18 that the mother can NOT touch at all. If the mother can't take care of the child without the help of the dads $$$, then the kid is living at the wrong place.

It's not like a dad still can't buy the kid some of the stuff the kid will want/need.

My brother and his wife of 17 years divorced about 5 years ago. Whomever made the point about two intelligent adults was correct. They equealy supported their kids without needing the legal system or attorneys. Both kids are now in college, so it worked out as best it could.

Child support and custody are two different issues. You cam pay and still not be entitled to spend time with your child.

Guys - it simply boils down to "You breed em', you feed 'em".

Sleeper - correct me if I'm wrong, but you pre-nup has no bearing on your romance with the state CSEA. If the mother of your child gets any short of state assistance (and she doesn't have to tell about it, either), it's the state that comes after you to recover their money.

They play rough, too. You might need a a pre-nup with Bubba, your future cellmate.

The system we have in place does nothing or very little for the child.

I think the system was OK. needs some adjustments now. ATTORNEYS are the biggest problem. When my brother was going through his divorce, he and his ex wanted to agree on everything. Both attorneys recommended each counter sue for something. Even though neither had any intention of doing so.

They ended amiciably with no lawsuits or court ordered support. Court ordered child support is for losers that dont support their own kids anyways.

Why should a court have to influence a parent to support their kids?

What happen to good old fashion marriage? Less people are getting married by the decade which equals to more child support payments.

The system is flawed, when, they tell a senior in high school that he can work a 40 hour week, while still attening high school, so they adjust the child support based on a 40 hour week, even if you're working 20+ and trying your damndest to make it work. It makes for a situation where you're behind on support from the freaking get-go.

Yeah, the smart way to go would be to wear a condom or go other methods, but it punishes the dad. Whereas, the mother is just as guilty for being willing to spread her damn legs.

Ya, this happened to me. Took me 10 years to get that shit caught up. Oh, and not to mention the fact that the bitch refused to use my insurance, that I always had on him. Instead used the medical card, which they ended up coming back on me for. Contacted J of S Services to report fraud, and they said it was moot, that a mom can still use Med Card as even a secondary form of insurance.

Thank god I have custody now, I've enjoyed raping her of some of her welfare. But, it's also a hell of lot easier for me to deal with my son financially.

The system, as it is, can kiss my hairy white ASS!!!!!!!

pnhasbeen wrote: It's all effed up. In short, child support money should go to a bank account for the child when they turn 18 that the mother can NOT touch at all. If the mother can't take care of the child without the help of the dads $$$, then the kid is living at the wrong place.

It's not like a dad still can't buy the kid some of the stuff the kid will want/need.

This line of thinking is flawed.

You actually think that the father should pay child support only to be used after the kid becomes an adult... ???

Umm... what would the purpose be then, of child support?

You really think that the mother should support the kid by putting a roof over its head, food in its belly, school supplies of all sorts, holidays, toilet paper, electric, water, shoes, clothes, etc... all on her own?

Or, were you jesting and I just didn't get it?