Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Two and a Half Men star Jon Cryer ordered to pay $8,000 in child support for a son 96% in HIS custody   (fathersandfamilies.org) divider line 160
    More: Weird, Jon Cryer, child support, child custody, so emotional  
•       •       •

6304 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Feb 2013 at 11:42 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-07 07:56:07 AM  
The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be Jon Cryer. While well-paid and technically successful, he's never been a break-out star, despite his talent. He's never gotten leading roles worth a damn. You could even argue that he lucked into a hit series, without which he'd be on some "Where Are They Now?"-show.

Couple all that with this clear travesty of justice, and it's obvious. It sucks balls to be Jon Cryer.
 
2013-02-07 07:57:06 AM  
Child support can include helping a non-custodial parent maintain an adequate residency for interactions with the child, or for future interactions with the child.
 
2013-02-07 08:08:28 AM  

Mangoose: Child support can include helping a non-custodial parent maintain an adequate residency for interactions with the child, or for future interactions with the child.


But in this case, it is defacto permanent alimony, despite the fact she has re-married and divorced since. She refuses to even try to work, hasn't worked in 6 years, and admits she lives beyond the means even Cryer's $8,000/month "child support" provides (she claims her monthly expenses are $13,000/month).
 
2013-02-07 08:11:35 AM  
He is paying .07% of his income from Two and a Half Men a month to help maintain a home for his son to visit and who may be placed back there at any time. That's like a guy who makes $60,000 handing over $35 each month. I don't think that's completely unreasonable.
 
2013-02-07 08:25:46 AM  

MmmmBacon: But in this case, it is defacto permanent alimony, despite the fact she has re-married and divorced since. She refuses to even try to work, hasn't worked in 6 years, and admits she lives beyond the means even Cryer's $8,000/month "child support" provides (she claims her monthly expenses are $13,000/month).


No it's child support. Child support payments can be used in securing and maintaining a suitable residency for whatever visitation the court allows. And it can be used to maintain the people who are to be providing support to the child, in this case the mother.

It sounds like a lot when you throw out $96,000 a year as a sum being awarded. When you stop to remember that the father makes 700k a month, it becomes a different story. He is paying little over 10% of 1/12 of what he makes in a year. He shows assets in excess of 7 million, 700K monthly income and expenses of 29K a month. Not including support payments.

Child support is not about what the average person can provide. If it were, just as many people would be getting the short end of the stick. It is about what each person in the specific case can provide.

There are no specific stipulations about looking for work and receiving any form of support payment.
 
2013-02-07 08:29:09 AM  
He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.
 
2013-02-07 08:30:44 AM  

Mangoose: There are no specific stipulations about looking for work and receiving any form of support payment.


Perhaps there should be? I have no problem with child support, even if it is used to maintain the household to some degree. But when the non-custodial parent is still receiving child support, and is clearly doing nothing on her own to support her household, then something is clearly wrong and needs to change.

She needs to get a job. If she were at least trying to work I wouldn't have too much of a problem with this, in the long run. But she's clearly a deadbeat.

The best day of Jon Cryer's life will be when his kid turns 18, and he no longer owes a dime to his Ex.
 
2013-02-07 08:53:49 AM  
Would the judge laugh him out of court or toss him in jail?  I can't decide.

Well, in my jurisdiction, the judge would apply the child support guideline calculation, as the law requires. If the other spouse presented a vocational expert who could opine to a reasonable degree of certainty as to what jobs were available to the unemployed or underemployed spouse and what he or she could earn, then the judge could impute income to that spouse prior to applying the guideline calculation.
 
2013-02-07 08:53:55 AM  

Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.


You're forgetting that he pays out on that to his obligations. Managers, agents, legal and accounting. Things like that. That won't be listed in his income because it is factored out from the studio that pays him. The studio pays the agreed upon portion to the agents, etc.. out of the agreed pay. Leaving him with whatever is left.

MmmmBacon: Perhaps there should be? ...

But when the non-custodial parent is still receiving child support, and is clearly doing nothing on her own to support her household, then something is clearly wrong and needs to change.

Why? What is wrong and what needs to be changed?

MmmmBacon: But she's clearly a deadbeat

mentally ill.

I don't really know the facts and I skimmed the brief listed as those things are boring. But this reeks of it.

If anything I'd be pissed that her lawyer made 50 grand on the two matters, which probably took all of 10 hours to work for whomever was doing it.
 
2013-02-07 08:57:08 AM  

Mangoose: If anything I'd be pissed that her lawyer made 50 grand on the two matters, which probably took all of 10 hours to work


That's adorable.
 
2013-02-07 09:05:18 AM  

kronicfeld: That's adorable.


This was a hearing to amend support payments not the original divorce proceeding.
 
2013-02-07 09:08:02 AM  
What a crock of BS.  I don't care how much he makes.  His ex is an unfit parent and a deadbeat and now he's forced to pay $96k a year to support her lazy ass.  It's wrong.
 
2013-02-07 09:25:05 AM  

Mangoose: kronicfeld: That's adorable.

This was a hearing to amend support payments not the original divorce proceeding.


Yes, I know. I handle those quite frequently. Way more than ten hours, particularly where you are no doubt dealing with more than simple W-2 income and all of the complex factual issues obviously involved, just based on what is cited in the article. It wouldn't cost my client $50K, but that's because my rate isn't as high as what her attorney's probably is.
 
2013-02-07 09:26:28 AM  
Yes, beat the victim!  That's how we should do it in America!  We certainly know everything we need to know from a press release turned into a news story!
 
2013-02-07 10:03:30 AM  
Sad for all involved.

/At least he can afford the payments.
 
2013-02-07 11:53:13 AM  

GAT_00: Yes, beat the victim!  That's how we should do it in America!  We certainly know everything we need to know from a press release turned into a news story!


"victim"?
 
2013-02-07 11:56:29 AM  
How many times do women pay this much income in child support to a man with 4% of custody?

Right.  Never.
Disgusting gender bias in Family Court... again.
 
2013-02-07 11:56:31 AM  
Note the article posting date of September 2011.
 
2013-02-07 11:57:07 AM  

Gwendolyn: He is paying .07% of his income from Two and a Half Men a month to help maintain a home for his son to visit and who may be placed back there at any time. That's like a guy who makes $60,000 handing over $35 each month. I don't think that's completely unreasonable.


Flip the genders.
 
2013-02-07 12:00:21 PM  
Well that is just Ducky.....

/Anyone?
 
2013-02-07 12:00:50 PM  
My hubbys ex died when his youngest child was 18, by then he and I were married.  In Ontario, Family Responsibility payments are deducted automatically of your income by your employer.  When she died, we were paying 750.00 a month in support.  The daughter moved in with us and the support payments still continued to go to the ex even tho she was dead.  So not only were we supporting her, the 750.00 a month was just going into a black hole.  We had to retain a lawyer to get the payments to stop, he charged us 4 grand to do this.  The support payments still continued for a year after she died, by the time it was over we were owed almost 9 grand.  When it all shook out, his oldest daughter (29 at the time) received the bulk of the estate and the youngest got very little. Not only did we pay support for a child we were supporting, she didn't get most of it when everything was settled and we were out thousands.  The legal system, gotta love it.
 
2013-02-07 12:03:15 PM  

Gwendolyn: He is paying .07% of his income from Two and a Half Men a month to help maintain a home for his son to visit and who may be placed back there at any time. That's like a guy who makes $60,000 handing over $35 each month. I don't think that's completely unreasonable.


It certainly is unreasonable.  The "he's rich, so it's ok" defense just doesn't cut it.  Can he afford to pay the money?  Certainly.  No one is arguing it's going to make him poor.  That doesn't make it reasonable.  The idea that it costs 96K per year simply to "maintain a home" that the kid sees maybe one day a month is lunacy.

This is an absolutely clear case of a person living off the money of someone else because she's too lazy to do anything for herself.  Being enabled by the courts is adding insult to injury.
 
2013-02-07 12:05:13 PM  
I wonder how much cheaper it would be to have her killed.
 
2013-02-07 12:05:39 PM  

Bhruic: It certainly is unreasonable.  The "he's rich, so it's ok" defense just doesn't cut it.


Its also assuming that he is going to make this money for the rest of his life.  He isn't.  This is his peak earning time.
 
2013-02-07 12:18:37 PM  
I think the true crime is that someone is paying Jon Cryer $700k/month.
 
2013-02-07 12:18:58 PM  

people: Bhruic: It certainly is unreasonable.  The "he's rich, so it's ok" defense just doesn't cut it.

Its also assuming that he is going to make this money for the rest of his life.  He isn't.  This is his peak earning time.


Not for the rest of his life, just for the next 10 years or so.
 
2013-02-07 12:23:34 PM  

MacWizard: people: Bhruic: It certainly is unreasonable.  The "he's rich, so it's ok" defense just doesn't cut it.

Its also assuming that he is going to make this money for the rest of his life.  He isn't.  This is his peak earning time.

Not for the rest of his life, just for the next 10 years or so.


I'm not going even look it up.  I'll just concede that.  Why?

Flip the genders.  There would be an outrage, with cries shaming the male.

It is amazing how people tolerate this gendered bias in family courts.
 
2013-02-07 12:31:53 PM  

MacWizard: Not for the rest of his life, just for the next 10 years or so.


His only real success is 'Two and a half men'.  He is unlikely to get another gig paying more than half a million per episode after this, and he probably suffers from typecasting at this point - much like star trek actors.

Charlie Sheen has proven to be unstable, yet a critical part of the show - which is why they brought him back even after his 'little meltdown'.

I doubt that the show is going to last another 10 years.  Maybe 5.
 
2013-02-07 12:37:21 PM  
First of all,

DUDE YOUR BLOG SUCKS!  You buried the lede.  The judge didn't change the support because there is another hearing scheduled to determine custody.  There was no point in amending the child support until after that hearing.  Cryer's lawyer probably knew that as well, but hey, it's never too early in the year to get ahead on your billable hours.  But the good news is the judge was probably pissed at both lawyers already so no damage done there.

Second, YOUR BLOG SUCKS!  Just wanted to emphasize that.
 
2013-02-07 12:39:07 PM  

MmmmBacon: The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be Jon Cryer. While well-paid and technically successful, he's never been a break-out star, despite his talent. He's never gotten leading roles worth a damn. You could even argue that he lucked into a hit series, without which he'd be on some "Where Are They Now?"-show.

Couple all that with this clear travesty of justice, and it's obvious. It sucks balls to be Jon Cryer.


He was amazing in Hot Shots!.

// Eagle River?!
 
2013-02-07 12:43:44 PM  

kronicfeld: Would the judge laugh him out of court or toss him in jail?  I can't decide.

Well, in my jurisdiction, the judge would apply the child support guideline calculation, as the law requires. If the other spouse presented a vocational expert who could opine to a reasonable degree of certainty as to what jobs were available to the unemployed or underemployed spouse and what he or she could earn, then the judge could impute income to that spouse prior to applying the guideline calculation.


You're either kidding, delusional, or trolling.

I hope it is the first.
 
2013-02-07 12:47:49 PM  

Krowdaddy Chixdiggit: Well that is just Ducky.....

/Anyone?


Should he try a little tenderness?
 
2013-02-07 12:50:18 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Krowdaddy Chixdiggit: Well that is just Ducky.....

/Anyone?

Should he try a little tenderness?


Ah, fantastic, someone is paying attention....Thanks!
 
2013-02-07 12:56:16 PM  
Not to let facts get in the way of anything, but since this article was published over a year ago, her parenting time has increased to 35%.
 
2013-02-07 01:01:36 PM  

MmmmBacon: The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be Jon Cryer.


Yeah, he has such a rough life.
 
2013-02-07 01:01:43 PM  

Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.


so that justifies that he should pay "child support" for a child he has near full custody of? this is almost as bad a dave foley still being held to pay child support based on his income from when news radio was still on the air.
 
2013-02-07 01:13:04 PM  

Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.


Did the point completely go over your head, or did you duck att the last minute?

It's not whether or not he has the money, it's the stupidity of him having to pay her for child support when he actually supports the child. She's trying to use this child support as her sole income because she's too useless to be bothered to get a job.

In essence, he is employing her as an unfit parent.

Example: My wife has custody of my stepsons, their dad has visitation, same scenario. In the real world, that means that HE pays my wife to help raise the two sons they had together. If this were Jon Cryer's situation, her ex would be unemployed, and instead of receiving child support to help raise the boys, she would instead be paying him money.

/California has all kinds of farked up laws regarding child support, divorce, etc...
 
2013-02-07 01:15:51 PM  

not5am: Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.

so that justifies that he should pay "child support" for a child he has near full custody of?


Yes, for reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread.
 
2013-02-07 01:17:19 PM  
Character gets hosed on show = Actor gets hosed in life...nothing to see here
 
2013-02-07 01:21:08 PM  

Krowdaddy Chixdiggit: Well that is just Ducky.....

/Anyone?


www.doctornerdlove.com
 
2013-02-07 01:21:26 PM  
Well, there's a delicate corneal inversion procedure... a multi-opti-pupil-optomy. But, in order to keep from damaging the eye sockets, they've got to go in through the rectum. Ain't no man going to take that route with me!
 
2013-02-07 01:30:04 PM  
"So according to the courts, nothing could be done about Jon's child support obligation because, well, the juvenile court might alter the custody arrangement at any time.  Let me remind you; I'm not making this up. "

That is the only reason why the court decided to not change the obligation. Everything else is hyperbole.
 
2013-02-07 01:38:44 PM  

slayer199: What a crock of BS.  I don't care how much he makes.  His ex is an unfit parent and a deadbeat and now he's forced to pay $96k a year to support her lazy ass.  It's wrong.


After reading the headline, I seriously assumed this was Texas. Texas pretty much assrapes fathers when it comes to child support.
 
2013-02-07 01:40:41 PM  

Mangoose: It sounds like a lot when you throw out $96,000 a year as a sum being awarded. When you stop to remember that the father makes 700k a month, it becomes a different story. He is paying little over 10% of 1/12 of what he makes in a year. He shows assets in excess of 7 million, 700K monthly income and expenses of 29K a month. Not including support payments.


I wonder how many people think this is plausible and fair while at the same time railing against the IRS for daring to tax these poor "job creators".
 
2013-02-07 01:47:38 PM  

jst3p: not5am: Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.

so that justifies that he should pay "child support" for a child he has near full custody of?

Yes, for reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread.


This isn't chlid support, it's "Pay 100% of another person's expenses plus plenty more than is needed to babysit your kid for a couple hours a week" support. You think she's too busy not raising kids to find a job?
 
2013-02-07 01:57:22 PM  

browntimmy: jst3p: not5am: Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.

so that justifies that he should pay "child support" for a child he has near full custody of?

Yes, for reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread.

This isn't chlid support, it's "Pay 100% of another person's expenses plus plenty more than is needed to babysit your kid for a couple hours a week" support. You think she's too busy not raising kids to find a job?


It is child support. What I think is irrelevant. I think my ex wife/co-parent should get a better job so that I don't have to pay 12k a year in child support despite the fact that I have them 50% of the time according to our agreement and in reality much more often than that.

As was stated by someone in this thread, who sounds like a lawyer,  Child support payments can be used in securing and maintaining a suitable residency for whatever visitation the court allows. And it can be used to maintain the people who are to be providing support to the child, in this case the mother.I find this entirely reasonable and as a percentage of total income he pays much less than most parents, even ones who have the majority of the custodial time.
 
2013-02-07 02:04:30 PM  

jst3p: not5am: Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.

so that justifies that he should pay "child support" for a child he has near full custody of?

Yes, for reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread.


So, it should be OK for a father to not have a job as long as the mother con provide a place for him to live when he sees his kid? Are you suggesting that their is no bias in this case? Are you arguing that a bias is OK?

Child support should only be for supporting the child. IE food, clothing, medical bills and any other expanses that the child incurs. If a parent can't provide for themselves and their own basic needs in the long term(disregarding disabilities or other extraneous factors)  then they do not deserve custody in any manner.
 
2013-02-07 02:07:52 PM  

dmars: So, it should be OK for a father to not have a job as long as the mother con provide a place for him to live when he sees his kid? Are you suggesting that their is no bias in this case? Are you arguing that a bias is OK?


^^^

Society has a hard time flipping the genders in family court.  The overall institutionalized gender bias in family courts is atrocious.
 
2013-02-07 02:09:04 PM  
So, wait a minute... if I knock up some actress with a starring gig on a very popular show, skip out on my fatherly duties and never see the kid while she has full custody, I can STILL get $8,000 a month in "child support"?

I'm in the wrong line of business.  Where's Kaley Cuoco when you need her?
 
2013-02-07 02:10:57 PM  
Life imitates art...
 
2013-02-07 02:14:51 PM  

dmars: So, it should be OK for a father to not have a job as long as the mother con provide a place for him to live when he sees his kid? Are you suggesting that their is no bias in this case? Are you arguing that a bias is OK?


I hope you aren't implying that he is paying because he is a man and the court wouldn't put a burden like this on a woman if it were a man who had sole custody and mom was wealthy...

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

Child support should only be for supporting the child. IE food, clothing, medical bills and any other expanses that the child incurs. If a parent can't provide for themselves and their own basic needs in the long term(disregarding disabilities or other extraneous factors)  then they do not deserve custody in any manner.

You are entitled to your opinion I suppose but that is not currently the way it works.
 
2013-02-07 02:19:40 PM  

people: dmars: So, it should be OK for a father to not have a job as long as the mother con provide a place for him to live when he sees his kid? Are you suggesting that their is no bias in this case? Are you arguing that a bias is OK?

^^^

Society has a hard time flipping the genders in family court.  The overall institutionalized gender bias in family courts is atrocious.


That hasn't been my experience in recent years ( and I a referring to my divorce and my two friends, we all ended up with joint custody). Many people don't understand the criteria the system uses in making it's judgement especially when it comes to custody. One of the strongest factors is who is the primary care giver, with the rational being if there has to be primary custody it is best if the parent that generally took care of the child is granted that custody. In most households dad works and mom stays home or works less than dad. It looks like gender bias but it isn't.
 
2013-02-07 02:29:44 PM  

jst3p: browntimmy: jst3p: not5am: Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.

so that justifies that he should pay "child support" for a child he has near full custody of?

Yes, for reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread.

This isn't chlid support, it's "Pay 100% of another person's expenses plus plenty more than is needed to babysit your kid for a couple hours a week" support. You think she's too busy not raising kids to find a job?

It is child support. What I think is irrelevant. I think my ex wife/co-parent should get a better job so that I don't have to pay 12k a year in child support despite the fact that I have them 50% of the time according to our agreement and in reality much more often than that.

As was stated by someone in this thread, who sounds like a lawyer,  Child support payments can be used in securing and maintaining a suitable residency for whatever visitation the court allows. And it can be used to maintain the people who are to be providing support to the child, in this case the mother.I find this entirely reasonable and as a percentage of total income he pays much less than most parents, even ones who have the majority of the custodial time.


It would be interesting to see her $13,000/month expenses. Granted, I'm not living out in California, but $13,000 would easily pay for all of my families bills, food, clothing, and leave me with a couple grand to spend how I want or save. Hell, I could do that on $8000, so there has to be something she's doing that's wasting money, because she can't possibly be spending $8000 on the kid. Some of that money is either going to property taxes or mortgage or something, because without his income, she'd lose the house that he helped her buy. I'm going to assume that her house is way to big for her and her new husband, and it also doesn't say if he 'helped' pay for it or if that really means 'he paid cash to provide her with a home, even though he didn't need to.'

Is she buying lots of fancy clothing? Paying lots of handlers to make her feel like a super special celebrity, even though she hasn't done anything since 2005? She eating out every day? Lots of memberships and a fancy car? I'm just really curious to see what someone who doesn't work and doesn't take care of her kids can spend 1.5X my yearly income on, because apparently this working bullshiat is for the dogs. I swear to god, I will rewire my physiology so I can squeeze out a crotch fruit, and then get an actor to pay me so they can take care of said crotch fruit.
 
2013-02-07 02:31:19 PM  
Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.
 
2013-02-07 02:35:19 PM  

voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.


http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.
 
2013-02-07 02:35:20 PM  

voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.


only other story where the woman paid alimony/child support i remember correctly was brittany spears and kevin federline. that is one lucky bastard.
 
2013-02-07 02:38:59 PM  

Celerian: jst3p: browntimmy: jst3p: not5am: Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.

so that justifies that he should pay "child support" for a child he has near full custody of?

Yes, for reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread.

This isn't chlid support, it's "Pay 100% of another person's expenses plus plenty more than is needed to babysit your kid for a couple hours a week" support. You think she's too busy not raising kids to find a job?

It is child support. What I think is irrelevant. I think my ex wife/co-parent should get a better job so that I don't have to pay 12k a year in child support despite the fact that I have them 50% of the time according to our agreement and in reality much more often than that.

As was stated by someone in this thread, who sounds like a lawyer,  Child support payments can be used in securing and maintaining a suitable residency for whatever visitation the court allows. And it can be used to maintain the people who are to be providing support to the child, in this case the mother.I find this entirely reasonable and as a percentage of total income he pays much less than most parents, even ones who have the majority of the custodial time.

It would be interesting to see her $13,000/month expenses. Granted, I'm not living out in California, but $13,000 would easily pay for all of my families bills, food, clothing, and leave me with a couple grand to spend how I want or save. Hell, I could do that on $8000, so there has to be something she's doing that's wasting money, because she can't possibly be spending $8000 on the kid. Some of that money is either going to property taxes or mortgage or something, because without his income, she'd lose the house that he helped her buy. I'm going to assume that her house is way to big for her and her new husband, and it also doesn't say if he 'helped' pay for it or if that really means ' ...


I agree that this is one of the flaws in the system, there is no oversight to determine that the money is spent in the best interests of the child, but no system is perfect.

One thing that annoys me more is that child support is not deductible. I should get to deduct it and it should count as taxable income for her, which is the way alimony is treated. I pay income tax on that 12k then give it to her. Meanwhile she gets an EITC and gets more in her "tax refund" than she had withheld all year.
 
2013-02-07 02:39:29 PM  

not5am: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

only other story where the woman paid alimony/child support i remember correctly was brittany spears and kevin federline. that is one lucky bastard.


To be fair, this was after she fired him as a dancer so they could hook up and he filed for "unemployment."
 
2013-02-07 02:40:35 PM  

jst3p: That hasn't been my experience in recent years ( and I a referring to my divorce and my two friends, we all ended up with joint custody). Many people don't understand the criteria the system uses in making it's judgement especially when it comes to custody. One of the strongest factors is who is the primary care giver, with the rational being if there has to be primary custody it is best if the parent that generally took care of the child is granted that custody. In most households dad works and mom stays home or works less than dad. It looks like gender bias but it isn't.



Ok. Ill bite  How is it not bias.
 
2013-02-07 02:41:09 PM  

jst3p: dmars: So, it should be OK for a father to not have a job as long as the mother con provide a place for him to live when he sees his kid? Are you suggesting that their is no bias in this case? Are you arguing that a bias is OK?

I hope you aren't implying that he is paying because he is a man and the court wouldn't put a burden like this on a woman if it were a man who had sole custody and mom was wealthy...

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

Child support should only be for supporting the child. IE food, clothing, medical bills and any other expanses that the child incurs. If a parent can't provide for themselves and their own basic needs in the long term(disregarding disabilities or other extraneous factors)  then they do not deserve custody in any manner.

You are entitled to your opinion I suppose but that is not currently the way it works.


You do realize that she lost custody when she went batshiat insane and only has visitation rights.

So, just because something is currently the way that we do things then fark it I guess right? Glad we didn't follow your example with slavery, women's suffrage, etc.

If you look at cases as a whole then yes there is a bias against the male gender, how do you not have a problem with this? I am not saying in every case it should benefit the father over the mother, In cases where the father doesn't even want custody and his arrangement through out the marriage was the wife stays home and he furthers his career then some supplementation is warranted. It isn't cut and dry and it seems like our court system treats it that way and I think it needs to stop.

I am lucky enough to be in a healthy divorced relationship and we are still partners when it comes to raising our son, but I could have been farked over so easy. My wife's lawyer was trying to convince her to get as much money from me as should could(which isn't a lot) which she declined, no child support(we split all his costs), full joint custody and we live a half a mile apart. I couldn't have divorced a better woman. Other guys that I know aren't that lucky and have to pay child support while the bitter ex still refuses their court ordered visitation and getting the court to enforce that shiat is a damn nightmare for them.

That is the way it currently is, but in my opinion it isn't good enough and needs to be changed.
 
2013-02-07 02:41:32 PM  

not5am: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

only other story where the woman paid alimony/child support i remember correctly was brittany spears and kevin federline. that is one lucky bastard.


Hallie Berry was ordered to pay 20k a moth too, I think.

It isn't as uncommon as you might think.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142637/More-women-U-S-payin g- husbands-alimony-child-support-before.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59963,00.html
 
2013-02-07 02:43:38 PM  

people: jst3p: That hasn't been my experience in recent years ( and I a referring to my divorce and my two friends, we all ended up with joint custody). Many people don't understand the criteria the system uses in making it's judgement especially when it comes to custody. One of the strongest factors is who is the primary care giver, with the rational being if there has to be primary custody it is best if the parent that generally took care of the child is granted that custody. In most households dad works and mom stays home or works less than dad. It looks like gender bias but it isn't.


Ok. Ill bite  How is it not bias.


Because the decision isn't made because of the gender, it just happens more often than not that the mom is the primary care giver. I work in IT, we have zero women on our unix admin team, a few on other teams in our department. We aren't biased against women it is just that very few women apply and are qualified.
 
2013-02-07 02:46:23 PM  

jst3p: it just happens more often than not that the mom is the primary care giver.


I'm going to skip statistics here.

Your argument gives, collectively, women the choice to either to take custody or not take custody.

Dad is forced to pay child support.

This is all the argument I need.  I don;t even need to talk about the disparity in women paying for men's child support when the father is the primary.

Thats it.  Bias.
 
2013-02-07 02:54:25 PM  

jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.


Umm, the court awarded custody of the boys to Federline. YOU couldn't be more wrong.
 
2013-02-07 02:54:27 PM  

dmars: You do realize that she lost custody when she went batshiat insane and only has visitation rights.


Irrelevant.

So, just because something is currently the way that we do things then fark it I guess right? Glad we didn't follow your example with slavery, women's suffrage, etc.

I am not saying that at all, I am saying that most people, yourself included apparently, don't understand the basis of these decisions and in lacking that understanding all you can see is that it must be bias.

If you look at cases as a whole then yes there is a bias against the male gender, how do you not have a problem with this?

Because I disagree that it is gender bias. It is bias in favor of who spends the most time with the child, who happens to be mom more often than not. That does not mean the courts favor women.


 I am not saying in every case it should benefit the father over the mother, In cases where the father doesn't even want custody and his arrangement through out the marriage was the wife stays home and he furthers his career then some supplementation is warranted. It isn't cut and dry and it seems like our court system treats it that way and I think it needs to stop.

I am lucky enough to be in a healthy divorced relationship and we are still partners when it comes to raising our son, but I could have been farked over so easy.


So the fact that you weren't but think you could have been is further evidence of systemic bias?

My wife's lawyer was trying to convince her to get as much money from me as should could(which isn't a lot) which she declined, no child support(we split all his costs), full joint custody and we live a half a mile apart. I couldn't have divorced a better woman. Other guys that I know aren't that lucky and have to pay child support while the bitter ex still refuses their court ordered visitation and getting the court to enforce that shiat is a damn nightmare for them.

I don't know your friends or their situations but and maybe your state is different but I have been involved in or party to custody issues in three different states and that shiat wouldn't fly here. Colorado is very focused on it being in the best interests of the kid to have access to both parents. More and more states are coming down on both dead beat parents and on parents who deny court ordered visitation. The only guys I know personally who feel like they get shafted by the system allowed it to happen by not asserting and/or fighting for their rights.
 
2013-02-07 02:55:53 PM  

puckrock2000: jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.

Umm, the court awarded custody of the boys to Federline. YOU couldn't be more wrong.


Fair enough, I misread what was posted.
 
2013-02-07 03:02:17 PM  

jst3p: dmars: You do realize that she lost custody when she went batshiat insane and only has visitation rights.

Irrelevant.


How is that irrelevant. John Cryer has primary custody. Kevin Federline has primary custody.

Kevin should get child support since his ex was unable to care for the children when she had custody.

John Cryer's ex gets child support since she was unable to care for the children when she had custody.

You don't see a difference here.
 
2013-02-07 03:02:57 PM  

people: jst3p: it just happens more often than not that the mom is the primary care giver.

I'm going to skip statistics here.

Your argument gives, collectively, women the choice to either to take custody or not take custody.



Not at all, first of all it isn't "my argument", it is what is currently believed to be in the best interests of the child and the basis for the decision. Secondly, if the couple decides that dad stays home and she is the bread winner the court would decide in favor of the father.

In addition this is only applicable where primary custody is awarded. More and more research is showing that it is not detrimental to the child to spend equal amounts of time in both parents home (some conditions apply). More and more often shared custody is being awarded/

Dad is forced to pay child support.

The non-custodial parent with the larger income pays child support, the gender doesn't matter.

This is all the argument I need.  I don;t even need to talk about the disparity in women paying for men's child support when the father is the primary.

Show me a case where the father has custody or even joint custody, the mother has greater income and she does not pay child support, then you will have a point. Show me more than one and you might have a valid point.

Thats it.  Bias.

But not gender bias.
 
2013-02-07 03:06:50 PM  

dmars: jst3p: dmars: You do realize that she lost custody when she went batshiat insane and only has visitation rights.

Irrelevant.

How is that irrelevant. John Cryer has primary custody. Kevin Federline has primary custody.

Kevin should get child support since his ex was unable to care for the children when she had custody.

John Cryer's ex gets child support since she was unable to care for the children when she had custody.

You don't see a difference here.


It is the same rationale that requires me to pay child support. Parenting time is only one factor when determining how child support is calculated. The other is income disparity. I have 50% custody but because she made 14k last  yearI still pay child support. The reasoning is that it would be detrimental to the kids to live with me half the time on the golf course and then go to the ghetto to live with mom.

I don't particularly like it, but my kids benefit so I accept it.
 
2013-02-07 03:07:49 PM  

jst3p: evidence of systemic bias?


You know, 100 or so years ago, the law gave the father custodial rights because they were paying for he  material support.

These rules are routinely bashed for being sexist and biased. Why cant we just use your argument above. Its about who pays the material support, right?  Don't use a current legal practices to mask and justify gendered bias in the court.

Men cannot bear the biological stresses and costs of pregnancy and child birth.  We work to support this process, especially in a country like the USA which is terrible on maternity leave.  We work as part of this process We work more hours.


Secondly, as part of the dual income families today, households, today, with dual income have less expendable income than single family incomes just 40 years ago.  A series of laws have been passed to maintain material support at the expense of the (most often) male income.
This is to the point where, while most dads pay their child support,  the vast majority of the dead beat dads are flat broke and destitute.

Tell me how fathers would not like the first option to choose whether they want custody or not and to have the women subsidize this right - a priviledge enjoyed by women
 
2013-02-07 03:10:27 PM  

jst3p: Show me a case where the father has custody or even joint custody, the mother has greater income and she does not pay child support, then you will have a point. Show me more than one and you might have a valid point.


This is the easiest argument I have ever had

First google search

First hit
E. For cases initiated between 1989 and 1992,94.5% of mothers with primary placement are awarded child support awards while only 41.9% of fathers with primary placement are awarded support awards. (Table 14)
 
2013-02-07 03:16:12 PM  
I am always boggled at the lack of dignity some people have when they think their ex-spouse should pay for for everything like they were a child just because the relationship ended. Be a grown up. Have some respect for yourself.
 
2013-02-07 03:19:15 PM  

jst3p: dmars: So, it should be OK for a father to not have a job as long as the mother con provide a place for him to live when he sees his kid? Are you suggesting that their is no bias in this case? Are you arguing that a bias is OK?

I hope you aren't implying that he is paying because he is a man and the court wouldn't put a burden like this on a woman if it were a man who had sole custody and mom was wealthy...

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

Child support should only be for supporting the child. IE food, clothing, medical bills and any other expanses that the child incurs. If a parent can't provide for themselves and their own basic needs in the long term(disregarding disabilities or other extraneous factors)  then they do not deserve custody in any manner.

You are entitled to your opinion I suppose but that is not currently the way it works.


Did you even read the link you posted? They charged her child support because he has custody. In Cryer's case, they are charging him child support while he has custody. If anyone should be paying child support, it should be Cryer's ex.

This is why men should never get married or have kids. The family courts are a god damned joke.
 
2013-02-07 03:19:33 PM  

FunkOut: I am always boggled at the lack of dignity some people have when they think their ex-spouse should pay for for everything like they were a child just because the relationship ended. Be a grown up. Have some respect for yourself.


Nah.  Now drive away in your divorced dad old old car to the divorced dad apartment. Enjoy the sharp statistical increase in suicide rates.
 
2013-02-07 03:20:22 PM  

people: jst3p: evidence of systemic bias?

You know, 100 or so years ago, the law gave the father custodial rights because they were paying for he  material support.


I would like to see some evidence of that. I did a quick google but cant find anything on child custody from 100 years ago.  I did find that in 1910 the prevailing problem seemed to be fathers abandoning their families:

1910: The Uniform Desertion and Non-Support Act
The Uniform Desertion and Non-Support Act was approved by The National Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws in 1910. It was initially adopted by 24 jurisdictions and made it a crime to for a husband to willfully abandon or neglect to provide support for children under the age of 16.

These rules are routinely bashed for being sexist and biased. Why cant we just use your argument above. Its about who pays the material support, right?  Don't use a current legal practices to mask and justify gendered bias in the court.

Men cannot bear the biological stresses and costs of pregnancy and child birth.  We work to support this process, especially in a country like the USA which is terrible on maternity leave.  We work as part of this process We work more hours.


Secondly, as part of the dual income families today, households, today, with dual income have less expendable income than single family incomes just 40 years ago.  A series of laws have been passed to maintain material support at the expense of the (most often) male income.
This is to the point where, while most dads pay their child support,  the vast majority of the dead beat dads are flat broke and destitute.


Tell me how fathers would not like the first option to choose whether they want custody or not and to have the women subsidize this right - a priviledge enjoyed by women


I am not quite sure what you are getting at here but the fact is the court doesn't care much about being fair or unfair to mom or dad, they care about what is best for the kid. The courts aren't gender biased, but when it comes to custody and what is in the best interests of the child maybe nature is.
 
2013-02-07 03:21:11 PM  

jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.


You couldn't be more retarded. Read your own link moron.
 
2013-02-07 03:21:47 PM  

people: jst3p: Show me a case where the father has custody or even joint custody, the mother has greater income and she does not pay child support, then you will have a point. Show me more than one and you might have a valid point.

This is the easiest argument I have ever had

First google search

First hit
E. For cases initiated between 1989 and 1992,94.5% of mothers with primary placement are awarded child support awards while only 41.9% of fathers with primary placement are awarded support awards. (Table 14)


Unless you can demonstrate that those fathers who were not getting child support had an income that was less than the mothers you have not made your point.
 
2013-02-07 03:22:59 PM  

jst3p: people: jst3p: Show me a case where the father has custody or even joint custody, the mother has greater income and she does not pay child support, then you will have a point. Show me more than one and you might have a valid point.

This is the easiest argument I have ever had

First google search

First hit
E. For cases initiated between 1989 and 1992,94.5% of mothers with primary placement are awarded child support awards while only 41.9% of fathers with primary placement are awarded support awards. (Table 14)

Unless you can demonstrate that those fathers who were not getting child support awarded custody had an income that was less than the mothers you have not made your point.

ftfm

 
2013-02-07 03:24:03 PM  

umad: jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.

You couldn't be more retarded. Read your own link moron.


Yeah, I didn't read what I was responding to properly. My bad, it happens.
 
2013-02-07 03:26:16 PM  

jst3p: I did a quick google but cant find anything on child custody from 100 years ago.


Ploop ploop.

Here you go.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/agunn/teaching/enl3251/vf/pres/hurvitz .h tm

jst3p: I am not quite sure what you are getting at here


its easy

1)  Women, collectively,  have the choice for primary custody.

--
Two income families. Both incomes pay for hosuehold.

2) Divorced dad does not have the choice.  He has to now pay for the old share of the household, with scraps left for the new life.

One gender has the choice.  One gender does not.

This was flipped and legally institutionalized, and not a damn person is trying to justify that as not sexist. The legal foundation for todays gendered bias in the courts is why its institutionalized gender bias in the courtroom.
 
2013-02-07 03:27:12 PM  

jst3p: In most households dad works and mom stays home or works less than dad.


Here is also a big problem that does lead to the bias.

You assume the mother is more fit because she is the "primary caregiver". Most father's HAVE to have a job. That doesn't make them less of a father.

In my case, my ex wife was stay at home before and after our son was born. The thing was she wasn't a very good mother early on and lucky for me that has changed.

I would get up for work and take our son to her grandmothers, who watched him while I worked, then I picked him up after work at take him home. This went on for about two years because she just wasn't willing at the time to care for our son, which some of that had to do with depression issues. She got over that and became a great mom but it was too late for the marriage. If we did have to fight over custody at the end, because of that assumption that you stated, I would have had a harder time gaining custody then she would have. That is just the truth of the matter.

Some of the instances you have mentioned are good strides in equal rights for fathers, but overall, I think men are not treated fairly in courts when it comes to custody.
 
2013-02-07 03:28:50 PM  

jst3p: Unless you can demonstrate that those fathers who were not getting child support had an income that was less than the mothers you have not made your point.


I'm not going to do that

Your problem is you are hiding behind the law that is forms the justification for gendered bias.

Want me to ask you to do that for the laws 100 years or so ago, when it was person providing primary supportthat got custody?
No, the law sucks.
 
2013-02-07 03:29:30 PM  

jst3p: You know, 100 or so years ago, the law gave the father custodial rights because they were paying for he  material support.

I would like to see some evidence of that. I did a quick google but cant find anything on child custody from 100 years ago.  I did find that in 1910 the prevailing problem seemed to be fathers abandoning their families:


I found this link, which is pretty interesting reading:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Child%20Custody%20in%20t he %20USA%20(Page%201%20of%205).htm

In Roman, and later in English common law, children were viewed as the property of the father, who had a legal obligation to protect, support and educate his children. Fathers had the right as well to sell their children, and to enter them into enforced labor. In divorce, until the mid-nineteenth century, fathers had a near absolute right to custody, regardless of circumstances. Several major historical trends converged to weaken this paternal presumption in the late 1800's, including society's increasing focus on children's welfare, and the effects of the industrial revolution. As fathers increasingly sought work beyond the farm or village, mothers remained at home as primary caretakers. The resultant division of family responsibilities into wage earner and child nurturer influenced subsequent custody decisions. The paternal preference was gradually replaced by a maternal preference, based on the "tender years" presumption. The tender years doctrine (intended to apply to children under age 6) was originally invoked to determine temporary custody arrangements in English law, giving mothers custody of infants only until they were ready to be returned to the father. But by the 1920's, the maternal preference for custody in English and American law, regardless of the child's age, became as firmly fixed as the earlier paternal preference, and was encoded in statute in all 48 states.

So, yeah it looks like since 1920 or so women have been awarded custody.
 
2013-02-07 03:29:34 PM  

dmars: You assume the mother is more fit because she is the "primary caregiver". Most father's HAVE to have a job. That doesn't make them less of a father.


This
 
2013-02-07 03:32:35 PM  

jst3p: In divorce, until the mid-nineteenth century, fathers had a near absolute right to custody, regardless of circumstances.


There you go.
 
2013-02-07 03:36:28 PM  

people: 1)  Women, collectively,  have the choice for primary custody.

--
Two income families. Both incomes pay for hosuehold.

2) Divorced dad does not have the choice.  He has to now pay for the old share of the household, with scraps left for the new life.

One gender has the choice.  One gender does not.

This was flipped and legally institutionalized, and not a damn person is trying to justify that as not sexist. The legal foundation for todays gendered bias in the courts is why its institutionalized gender bias in the courtroom.


Because it is believed that the if custody needs to be awarded it is in the best interests of the child that the award goes to whoever spent the most time with the child. This isn't because courts hate men, it is because the court is only concerned in what the child's needs are.
 
2013-02-07 03:38:13 PM  

people: jst3p: In divorce, until the mid-nineteenth century, fathers had a near absolute right to custody, regardless of circumstances.

There you go.


To be fair, I don't think going back to treating women and children like property is the way to go either.

Let me ask you something, if "primary care giver" isn't the right way to determine custody, what would be?
 
2013-02-07 03:43:14 PM  

jst3p: would like to see some evidence of that. I did a quick google but cant find anything on child custody from 100 years ago.  I did find that in 1910 the prevailing problem seemed to be fathers abandoning their families:


http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/254/mcnefram.html

It was in the 1800s, so 150 years ago, but it did happen
 
2013-02-07 03:44:04 PM  

jst3p: in the best interests of the child


jst3p: if "primary care giver" isn't the right way to determine custody, what would be?


Lets be clear. A one size fits all rule that biases againt men is not the way to determine this.

jst3p: if "primary care giver" isn't the right way to determine custody, what would be?


I can tell you what it isn't.  A one size fits all rule.

Perhaps they could have a place, where they review the information.  In that place, there would be paid professionals there  on each side to give those arguments.  Also there would be a person who's job it would be to look over that information and weigh it out on a case by case basis, with out the constraints of these one size fits all rules.
 
2013-02-07 03:44:51 PM  

dmars: jst3p: would like to see some evidence of that. I did a quick google but cant find anything on child custody from 100 years ago.  I did find that in 1910 the prevailing problem seemed to be fathers abandoning their families:

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/254/mcnefram.html

It was in the 1800s, so 150 years ago, but it did happen


damn see it was already taken care of, it shouldn't have been that way either, but it was just as bad in the pre 1970's when dad's where automatically "weekend dad" with no say so otherwise
 
2013-02-07 03:47:56 PM  

jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.


This would only be similar if Brittney had full custody and was still paying K-Fed the child support.
 
2013-02-07 03:49:08 PM  

meanmutton: jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.

This would only be similar if Brittney had full custody and was still paying K-Fed the child support.


It's been covered about five times now, but thanks for the input
 
2013-02-07 03:50:21 PM  

people: Perhaps they could have a place, where they review the information.  In that place, there would be paid professionals there  on each side to give those arguments.  Also there would be a person who's job it would be to look over that information and weigh it out on a case by case basis, with out the constraints of these one size fits all rules.


There would still have to be some basis for the decision, some factor that is compelling enough to favor one parent over another. More states need to be like Colorado.


In Colorado, child custody is determined by the best interests of the child. The court uses several factors to determine the best interests of the child, including:

The child's wishes
Each parent's wishes
The child's relationship with his/her parents and other influential persons
The child's adjustment to school, home and community
The mental and physical health of all involved parties

Joint Child Custody in Colorado
In Colorado, a judge prefers to award parents joint custody

where parents are given frequent and continuous contact to the child.
However, court in Colorado will not grant custody to a parent who presents a physical or emotional danger to the child.
 In making a determination for joint custody, a Colorado court will consider:

Whether the parents have the ability to make decisions jointly
Whether each parent's relationship with the child is encouraging and loving
How the custody split will affect the encouragement of frequent and constant contact with each parent
 
2013-02-07 03:51:17 PM  

jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.


Hey dumbass, your link doesn't say what you think it says!
 
2013-02-07 03:53:51 PM  

jst3p: people: jst3p: In divorce, until the mid-nineteenth century, fathers had a near absolute right to custody, regardless of circumstances.

There you go.

To be fair, I don't think going back to treating women and children like property is the way to go either.

Let me ask you something, if "primary care giver" isn't the right way to determine custody, what would be?


A perfectly equal and even split, except in cases of abuse or neglect.
 
2013-02-07 03:56:27 PM  

people: jst3p: in the best interests of the child

jst3p: if "primary care giver" isn't the right way to determine custody, what would be?

Lets be clear. A one size fits all rule that biases againt men is not the way to determine this.

jst3p: if "primary care giver" isn't the right way to determine custody, what would be?

I can tell you what it isn't.  A one size fits all rule.

Perhaps they could have a place, where they review the information.  In that place, there would be paid professionals there  on each side to give those arguments.  Also there would be a person who's job it would be to look over that information and weigh it out on a case by case basis, with out the constraints of these one size fits all rules.


It really should be done on a case by case basis. That being said, the world isn't fair. Men get screwed in divorce/custody hearings because courts like to automatically award custody to the women. On the other hand, women get screwed financially by the fathers of their kids all the damn time. In my family, which I realize is an anecdote and not evidence, I have three boys who were absolutely and completely abandoned by their dads. I have one boy who was absolutely and completely abandoned by his mom. I have another boy whose parents divorced and whose deadbeat dad refuses to pay child support while concurrently trying to block the boy and his mom from leaving the state to greener pastures. (Fortunately, the judge told him to pound sand.) I have a relative who truly wants to be involved in his son's life, but his girlfriend (now ex) moved to another state and took their kid. He doesn't want to make waves for fear that she'll revoke all access to their son. And I have another family member who has two kids and doesn't give a flying fark about them. His parents do (one of whom was the little boy abandoned by his mom I mentioned earlier), so his kids are still definitely part of our family, despite his uncaring attitude. And my maternal grandmother died when my mom was a little girl.

So, the world ain't fair. Women get screwed by men, men get screwed by women. The thing is, the courts don't give a fark about the parents, they care about the kids. They don't care that dad is getting screwed by the ex-wife if it means the kid gets the best chance possible in life. It's the kid that matters, not the parents.
 
2013-02-07 03:56:46 PM  

jst3p: In Colorado, child custody is determined by the best interests of the child. The court uses several factors to determine the best interests of the child, including:

The child's wishes
Each parent's wishes
The child's relationship with his/her parents and other influential persons
The child's adjustment to school, home and community
The mental and physical health of all involved parties


Do they have unicorns in Colorado?

How does that work out in practice?


.
 
2013-02-07 03:58:43 PM  
people: jst3p: In Colorado, child custody is determined by the best interests of the child. The court uses several factors to determine the best interests of the child, including:

The child's wishes
Each parent's wishes
The child's relationship with his/her parents and other influential persons
The child's adjustment to school, home and community
The mental and physical health of all involved parties

Do they have unicorns in Colorado?

How does that work out in practice?


Works fine with my ex and I, but it isn't always easy.
 
2013-02-07 03:59:22 PM  

meanmutton: jst3p: people: jst3p: In divorce, until the mid-nineteenth century, fathers had a near absolute right to custody, regardless of circumstances.

There you go.

To be fair, I don't think going back to treating women and children like property is the way to go either.

Let me ask you something, if "primary care giver" isn't the right way to determine custody, what would be?

A perfectly equal and even split, except in cases of abuse or neglect.


Except what if that's not in the kid's best interests? What if the dad lives in one neighborhood and the mom another? Should the kid have to split time between schools? What if the dad lives in a crappy school district and the mom a good one? What if the kid has special needs that are more readily addressed by living full time with one particular parent? What if the kid has medical needs and one parent is a doctor or nurse while the other is not?

You're trying to make it equitable for the parents, which is commendable, but it's really about what's best for the kid.
 
2013-02-07 03:59:51 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Men get screwed in divorce/custody hearings because courts like to automatically award custody to the women.


Suck it up, guys.

Mike Chewbacca: On the other hand, women get screwed financially by the fathers of their kids all the damn time.


The vast majority of men are not deadbeats.  A large percentage of the ones that are are basically destitute.

Mike Chewbacca: It's the kid that matters, not the parents.


Lets stop favoring the woman, then.
 
2013-02-07 04:02:12 PM  

jst3p: Works fine with my ex and I, but it isn't always easy.


Meanwhile we still have an institutionalized and legal bias that gives women the first choice on custody.  This is masked by giving the primary caregiver first choice.
 
2013-02-07 04:03:45 PM  

MmmmBacon: The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be

Jon Cryer a divorced father.

FTFA
 
2013-02-07 04:08:25 PM  

OgreMagi: MmmmBacon: The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be Jon Cryer a divorced father.

FTFA


I strongly disagree.
 
2013-02-07 04:09:43 PM  

jst3p: One thing that annoys me more is that child support is not deductible. I should get to deduct it and it should count as taxable income for her, which is the way alimony is treated. I pay income tax on that 12k then give it to her. Meanwhile she gets an EITC and gets more in her "tax refund" than she had withheld all year.


This. So much this.
 
2013-02-07 04:11:13 PM  

people: The vast majority of men are not deadbeats. A large percentage of the ones that are are basically destitute.


And the vast majority of divorced moms aren't greedy biatches looking to screw their exes.
 
2013-02-07 04:14:39 PM  

jst3p: OgreMagi: MmmmBacon: The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be Jon Cryer a divorced father.

FTFA

I strongly disagree.



Man, this look like crap

Did you have to deal with this?

divorce states: the worst
Colorado
Colorado may be a beautiful place to live, but it's a terrible place to get a divorce if you're the higher earner in a long-term marriage. In fact, it may be the worst state. Colorado has a "temporary" maintenance formula of 40% of the higher income minus 50% of the lower income that is often just carried over into the permanent award, regardless of the lower-earning spouse's ability to support themselves or the property division. For example, Dick earns $3,500 per month, and Jane earns $1,500 per month. Dick's "temporary" payment will be $650 ($1,400 - $750) per month. Here's the kicker though: If you have been married longer than 20 years, you will be ordered lifetime alimony if you go to the judge. The property split will be "equitable," which basically means you will be at the whim of the judge.

The bottom line: Negotiate a settlement if at all possible, otherwise you will not be feeling "Rocky Mountain High."
 
2013-02-07 04:16:22 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: And the vast majority of divorced moms aren't greedy biatches looking to screw their exes.


Its not about being a greedy biatch.

Its the nature of having a dual income family, and having the family finances -both of them- to pay for one house.

The person who is out, finds their income haing to pay for the old lifestyle, with scraps to pay for the new one.
 
2013-02-07 04:16:49 PM  

people: The vast majority of men are not deadbeats. A large percentage of the ones that are are basically destitute.


The courts' logic (and I use that term loosely) is they won't reduce child support when a man's income is lower because his potential is all that matters.  The courts refuse to take into account economic reality so getting a reduction because your income has been reduced through no fault of your own is pretty much impossible.  The courts have even gone so far as to uphold child support on the homeless.

Turn it around and you see how unfair it is.  A woman who can afford the payments, but simply doesn't bother (usually to punish the man) is almost never held accountable.
 
2013-02-07 04:20:20 PM  

people: Mike Chewbacca: And the vast majority of divorced moms aren't greedy biatches looking to screw their exes.

Its not about being a greedy biatch.

Its the nature of having a dual income family, and having the family finances -both of them- to pay for one house.

The person who is out, finds their income haing to pay for the old lifestyle, with scraps to pay for the new one.


Couple that with women filing the majority of divorces(even if you excluded cases of abuse) and some men can be hit pretty hard by all of that.
 
2013-02-07 04:21:17 PM  

people: Mike Chewbacca: And the vast majority of divorced moms aren't greedy biatches looking to screw their exes.

Its not about being a greedy biatch.

Its the nature of having a dual income family, and having the family finances -both of them- to pay for one house.

The person who is out, finds their income haing to pay for the old lifestyle, with scraps to pay for the new one.


And again, it's not about what's best for the parents, it's about what's best for the kids. Life is unfair. It sucks to have to make payments so your ex can continue to live in the house you helped buy. On the other, kids who live in poverty have a significantly greater chance of living in poverty as an adult. This really is a case of thinking of the children. When you're a parent, your needs are secondary.

By the way, I know two different families who divorced but the parents continued to live in the same house because they decided it was best for the kids. It wasn't best for them, but it was best for the kids.
 
2013-02-07 04:21:56 PM  

OgreMagi: The courts' logic (and I use that term loosely) is they won't reduce child support when a man's income is lower because his potential is all that matters.  The courts refuse to take into account economic reality so getting a reduction because your income has been reduced through no fault of your own is pretty much impossible.


I mentally blocked this out of my brain.
 
2013-02-07 04:22:59 PM  
This story is from September 1st, 2011, does anybody have an update?
 
2013-02-07 04:24:01 PM  

dmars: Couple that with women filing the majority of divorces(even if you excluded cases of abuse) and some men can be hit pretty hard by all of that.


Suicide rate jumps significantly in men post divorce.

Mike Chewbacca: And again, it's not about what's best for the parents, it's about what's best for the kids. Life is unfair.


Well, its unfair to guys here.  Systematically.  Its not possible to generalize which gender is going to do a better job at raising the kids, but the women get this advantage.
Men just need to suck it up. .
 
2013-02-07 04:24:43 PM  

people: jst3p: OgreMagi: MmmmBacon: The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be Jon Cryer a divorced father.

FTFA

I strongly disagree.


Man, this look like crap

Did you have to deal with this?

divorce states: the worst
Colorado
Colorado may be a beautiful place to live, but it's a terrible place to get a divorce if you're the higher earner in a long-term marriage. In fact, it may be the worst state. Colorado has a "temporary" maintenance formula of 40% of the higher income minus 50% of the lower income that is often just carried over into the permanent award, regardless of the lower-earning spouse's ability to support themselves or the property division. For example, Dick earns $3,500 per month, and Jane earns $1,500 per month. Dick's "temporary" payment will be $650 ($1,400 - $750) per month. Here's the kicker though: If you have been married longer than 20 years, you will be ordered lifetime alimony if you go to the judge. The property split will be "equitable," which basically means you will be at the whim of the judge.

The bottom line: Negotiate a settlement if at all possible, otherwise you will not be feeling "Rocky Mountain High."



We were only married 5 years so I didn't have to worry about an alimony award but I did pay through the nose while the divorce was pending.

Not going before a judge is good advice, we were able to work things out.

You want to know why divorce is so expensive?

Because it is worth it.
 
2013-02-07 04:26:35 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: By the way, I know two different families who divorced but the parents continued to live in the same house because they decided it was best for the kids. It wasn't best for them, but it was best for the kids.


This. This is the economic reality of struggling financially with two incomes.

You just cant afford a separate adult lifestyle.
 
2013-02-07 04:27:34 PM  

OgreMagi: people: The vast majority of men are not deadbeats. A large percentage of the ones that are are basically destitute.

The courts' logic (and I use that term loosely) is they won't reduce child support when a man's income is lower because his potential is all that matters.  The courts refuse to take into account economic reality so getting a reduction because your income has been reduced through no fault of your own is pretty much impossible.  The courts have even gone so far as to uphold child support on the homeless.



 If you do this, the court may temporarily or permanently reduce the amount of future payments. At a hearing, the child support master or judge may modify the amount of child support you pay in two situations:

1) If there has been a substantial change in circumstances that impacts your ability to pay child support, or

2) If it has been three years since the child support order has created or modified and the amount you pay differs by 20 percent or $100 from the amount you would pay based on your current income according to the child support guidelines. The court may also order you to seek employment or participate in an employment-training program, such as those offered by the Texas Workforce Commission.

http://www.fathers4kids.com/html/ChildSupport.htm?article_id=74

First hit on google.
 
2013-02-07 04:27:44 PM  

jst3p: You want to know why divorce is so expensive?

Because it is worth it.


Heh.
You.  You're ok.
 
2013-02-07 04:31:11 PM  
There was a story around here about a guy who did freelance work, and the ex wife's divorce attorney calculated his potential income for an IT guy.  $70,000 or something,

I dont even want to look for that depressing piece of news.
 
2013-02-07 04:33:06 PM  

people: Well, its unfair to guys here. Systematically. Its not possible to generalize which gender is going to do a better job at raising the kids, but the women get this advantage.
Men just need to suck it up.


Generally, women suffer more from financial losses than men because of unequal wages for men and women and because women usually have more expenses associated with the physical custody of children after divorce.

About one in five women fall into poverty as a result of divorce.
About one in three women who own a home and have children at home when they divorce lose their homes.
Three out of four divorced mothers don't receive full payment of child support.

Because most families now have two incomes, most men experience a loss in their standard of living in the years after a divorce, a loss generally between 10%-40%, depending on circumstances... First, if his ex-wife contributed a substantial income to the family, he will struggle to make up for this lost second income. Second, he is likely to be required to make child-support and other payments.284 This comes on top of having to pay for a separate home or apartment. In addition, if a father has custody or shares custody of his children, there will be additional expenses.

From this pdf.

It sucks for both, for different and similar reasons.
 
2013-02-07 04:34:17 PM  
I'll just leave this here.

www.herogohome.com

/worst movie ever
 
2013-02-07 04:38:05 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: because of unequal wages for men and women


This 77% figure is a myth.  Its also one to frequently cited. No idea why it has such legs.

Mike Chewbacca: It sucks for both, for different and similar reasons.


Wouldnt disagree with this.  Its not possible to stretch a budget However my issue is one sex gets a choice in what they want to do, either custody or not.  men, collectively do not get this choice.
 
2013-02-07 04:41:08 PM  

people: Mike Chewbacca: It sucks for both, for different and similar reasons.

Wouldnt disagree with this.  Its not possible to stretch a budget However my issue is one sex gets a choice in what they want to do, either custody or not.  men, collectively do not get this choice.


Except in most states and Washington D.C.

Thirty-five states plus the District of Columbia have statutes that explicitly authorize joint custody as a presumption or strong preference. The following are some of the best relevant statutes from States which provide a presumption. Click on the links to take you to the relevant statute text.

http://ancpr.com/joint_custody_laws_in_the_united.htm
 
2013-02-07 04:44:37 PM  

jst3p: joint custody


Joint custody =/= 50-50%

I'm using your terms above.  You yourself brought up the preference for primary care parent.

Thats gendered bias institutionalized by law.

Thats it.  Wrap it up.  its done.
 
2013-02-07 04:51:11 PM  
If her expenses are $13k per month and she's getting $8k from him per month.  Having no job, where does the other $5k come from?
 
2013-02-07 05:10:37 PM  

Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.


So it's cool for her basically to suck money from him while not even trying to work and while sucking as a parent.

Even if TFA was coming off as super bitter about how divorce settlements favor women, he's right here. Seriously reverse the sexes of the people involved here and question if you would still feel the same way if a woman were expected to be the breadwinner for an ex that didn't even take care of your child even when he still had custody of the child.
 
2013-02-07 05:42:38 PM  

MmmmBacon: The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be Jon Cryer

don't get divorced in California if you're a man.
 
2013-02-07 05:45:30 PM  
 Because Sarah's children were taken from her by the Department of Children and Family Services due to her neglect, there was a dependency proceeding in juvenile court at the same time the child support issue was being litigated.

No one knew what the outcome of the dependency proceeding might have been; they only knew that Jon had custody and Sarah didn't.  That could have changed at any time.  The juvenile court could have done anything from returning full custody to Sarah to terminating her parental rights altogether.

So according to the courts, nothing could be done about Jon's child support obligation because, well, the juvenile court might alter the custody arrangement at any time.



If you remove the inflammatory language it kinda makes sense. The kids were removed from mom and the dependency hearing that was going on could drastically change parenting time, so they wanted to wait for the other court to decide before altering an order that might need to be altered again in the very near future.

It looks like the argument was "We don't think this division if parenting time is going to be permanent and if he stops paying she will lose the house. If it is temporary the child support will be reinstated but losing the house would have a negative impact on the child."

OK, that's a little sketchy, but no where near as bad as TFA paints it.

This article  has an update:

UPDATE: Since 2009, the courts have increased Sarah's custody rights -- and according to her lawyer, she now has custody of their son for 35% of the time ... and the courts NEVER ruled that she was an unfit parent.
http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/30/jon-cryer-sarah-trigger-child-support- ap peals-court-california-appeal-court-of-appeals-8000-per-month-son-two- and-a-half-men/


So it seems like a reasonable decision in hindsight (to me).

Then again I am working and farking and might be missing something.

I am kinda confused about the link being from 2011 and the update saying "since 2009" but I don't care enough to dig deeper.
 
2013-02-07 05:49:45 PM  

katerbug72: I'll just leave this here.

[www.herogohome.com image 800x343]

/worst movie ever


content.internetvideoarchive.com

Keep the man away from the Chlorox.
 
2013-02-07 05:57:16 PM  

jst3p: Because Sarah's children were taken from her by the Department of Children and Family Services due to her neglect, there was a dependency proceeding in juvenile court at the same time the child support issue was being litigated.

No one knew what the outcome of the dependency proceeding might have been; they only knew that Jon had custody and Sarah didn't.  That could have changed at any time.  The juvenile court could have done anything from returning full custody to Sarah to terminating her parental rights altogether.

So according to the courts, nothing could be done about Jon's child support obligation because, well, the juvenile court might alter the custody arrangement at any time.


If you remove the inflammatory language it kinda makes sense. The kids were removed from mom and the dependency hearing that was going on could drastically change parenting time, so they wanted to wait for the other court to decide before altering an order that might need to be altered again in the very near future.

It looks like the argument was "We don't think this division if parenting time is going to be permanent and if he stops paying she will lose the house. If it is temporary the child support will be reinstated but losing the house would have a negative impact on the child."

OK, that's a little sketchy, but no where near as bad as TFA paints it.

This article  has an update:

UPDATE: Since 2009, the courts have increased Sarah's custody rights -- and according to her lawyer, she now has custody of their son for 35% of the time ... and the courts NEVER ruled that she was an unfit parent.
http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/30/jon-cryer-sarah-trigger-child-support- ap peals-court-california-appeal-court-of-appeals-8000-per-month-son-two- and-a-half-men/


So it seems like a reasonable decision in hindsight (to me).

Then again I am working and farking and might be missing something.

I am kinda confused about the link being from 2011 and the update saying "since 2009" but I don't ...


Also the courts reduced his child support from $10,000 to $8,000, and she was ordered to find employment (which she apparently failed to do). Also also, if she really is dependent upon the child support payments, reducing the benfits would make her lose her housing, and then Jon Cryer could then go to the courts and demand full custody because hey, his ex-wife is homeless.
 
2013-02-07 06:46:43 PM  

Pivot: My hubbys ex died when his youngest child was 18, by then he and I were married.  In Ontario, Family Responsibility payments are deducted automatically of your income by your employer.  When she died, we were paying 750.00 a month in support.  The daughter moved in with us and the support payments still continued to go to the ex even tho she was dead.  So not only were we supporting her, the 750.00 a month was just going into a black hole.  We had to retain a lawyer to get the payments to stop, he charged us 4 grand to do this.  The support payments still continued for a year after she died, by the time it was over we were owed almost 9 grand.  When it all shook out, his oldest daughter (29 at the time) received the bulk of the estate and the youngest got very little. Not only did we pay support for a child we were supporting, she didn't get most of it when everything was settled and we were out thousands.  The legal system, gotta love it.


Wasn't there a method to report the death to the court without a lawyer?  That should have been straight forward.  Payments in escrow until the account is settled.
 
2013-02-07 06:52:38 PM  

Baelz: "So according to the courts, nothing could be done about Jon's child support obligation because, well, the juvenile court might alter the custody arrangement at any time.  Let me remind you; I'm not making this up. "

That is the only reason why the court decided to not change the obligation. Everything else is hyperbole.


Which it turns out they did - she has the child 35% of the time, and the kid is definitely entitled to the same standard of living in both houses, as well as not having to switch out of his home just cause his parents couldn't keep their shiat together.
 
2013-02-07 07:20:26 PM  

jst3p: Colorado


None of which stops a dad from getting screwed on child support.  I know a guy who's psuedo-ex (never even married because she was a crazy gash) is raking him over the coals.  He makes an ok living, but has to pay her $1500/mo for one kid.  She made out so well on the court's decision that she quit her job (she was going to school too, but that was just during the lead-up to the court case so she could soak him for another couple hundred, after which she promptly dropped out).  In all honesty, it's not all that different than Cryer's situation other than the obvious TV star aspect.  He has the kid about 70% of the time, so a little less there too, but still gets screwed.  Meanwhile she keeps getting into abusive relationships where there's jail-time involved, domestic violence, etc which is great for the kid.

So yeah, Colorado is not all unicorns and rainbows either.
 
2013-02-07 07:27:34 PM  
The situation is so bad, he's moving into his brother's house...
 
2013-02-07 07:40:47 PM  

BigMevy: jst3p: Colorado

None of which stops a dad from getting screwed on child support.  I know a guy who's psuedo-ex (never even married because she was a crazy gash) is raking him over the coals.  He makes an ok living, but has to pay her $1500/mo for one kid.  She made out so well on the court's decision that she quit her job (she was going to school too, but that was just during the lead-up to the court case so she could soak him for another couple hundred, after which she promptly dropped out).  In all honesty, it's not all that different than Cryer's situation other than the obvious TV star aspect.  He has the kid about 70% of the time, so a little less there too, but still gets screwed.  Meanwhile she keeps getting into abusive relationships where there's jail-time involved, domestic violence, etc which is great for the kid.

So yeah, Colorado is not all unicorns and rainbows either.


And how many women in CO get stiffed (haha) by their exes?
 
2013-02-07 08:08:15 PM  

BigMevy: jst3p: Colorado

None of which stops a dad from getting screwed on child support.  I know a guy who's psuedo-ex (never even married because she was a crazy gash) is raking him over the coals.  He makes an ok living, but has to pay her $1500/mo for one kid.  She made out so well on the court's decision that she quit her job (she was going to school too, but that was just during the lead-up to the court case so she could soak him for another couple hundred, after which she promptly dropped out).  In all honesty, it's not all that different than Cryer's situation other than the obvious TV star aspect.  He has the kid about 70% of the time, so a little less there too, but still gets screwed.  Meanwhile she keeps getting into abusive relationships where there's jail-time involved, domestic violence, etc which is great for the kid.

So yeah, Colorado is not all unicorns and rainbows either.


In Colorado there is a formula that judges are reluctant to deviate from. I make 100k, my ex makes 14k according to the formula and parenting time split (50/50) I pay about $1,000 per month.

Either you aren't telling us something, he isn't telling you something or this is bullshiat.
 
2013-02-07 08:09:47 PM  

jst3p: BigMevy: jst3p: Colorado

None of which stops a dad from getting screwed on child support.  I know a guy who's psuedo-ex (never even married because she was a crazy gash) is raking him over the coals.  He makes an ok living, but has to pay her $1500/mo for one kid.  She made out so well on the court's decision that she quit her job (she was going to school too, but that was just during the lead-up to the court case so she could soak him for another couple hundred, after which she promptly dropped out).  In all honesty, it's not all that different than Cryer's situation other than the obvious TV star aspect.  He has the kid about 70% of the time, so a little less there too, but still gets screwed.  Meanwhile she keeps getting into abusive relationships where there's jail-time involved, domestic violence, etc which is great for the kid.

So yeah, Colorado is not all unicorns and rainbows either.

In Colorado there is a formula that judges are reluctant to deviate from. I make 100k, my ex makes 14k according to the formula and parenting time split (50/50) I pay about $1,000 per month.

Either you aren't telling us something, he isn't telling you something or this is bullshiat.


And I am paying for 2 kids.

Smells like bullshiat.
 
2013-02-07 08:27:46 PM  

jst3p: One thing that annoys me more is that child support is not deductible. I should get to deduct it and it should count as taxable income for her, which is the way alimony is treated. I pay income tax on that 12k then give it to her. Meanwhile she gets an EITC and gets more in her "tax refund" than she had withheld all year.


I'm a volunteer tax preparer; in some cases you CAN have it be declared income for the custodial parent, plus if you pay more than 50% of the support of the child you may be able to claim him or her.

On the topic of child support, I once came up with a crazy complex formula that had the idea of 'average QoL'.

The general idea is that each additional member of a household is less expensive than the first.  For example, a single person household is a '1'.  A 2 member household might be a '1.6', a 3 member a 2, 4 is 2.4, and each one beyond that another .4.

So if you have a divorced couple where the wife has total custody of 2 kids.  She works and earns $60k.  The ex-husband works, lives alone, but only makes $30k.

Under my formula, he wouldn't owe any child support, as under the rules her income divided by the household number is equal to his income divided by his household number.

Let's say he makes $60k like her.  Now it gets complicated - The goal is to pay <i>the kids</i> enough child support to raise <i>their</i> standard of living to be the average of their father and mother.  The formula gets complex, but in this case would be $10k/year.  What this does is puts the dad on a $50k 'living scale', Mom on a $30k one, and the kids the average between at $40k.

The formula is up for adjustment, of course.
 
2013-02-07 08:54:46 PM  
jst3p:The only guys I know personally who feel like they get shafted by the system allowed it to happen by not asserting and/or fighting for their rights.


FARK YOU! Going through some seriously biased crap in both CT and MA courts. If things are better in CO, great for you but don't, for one second, think that applies everywhere or that men griping about being shafted is their fault.

So what is it with you? Willfully ignorant or just trolling?
 
2013-02-07 09:40:49 PM  

SauceIT: jst3p:The only guys I know personally who feel like they get shafted by the system allowed it to happen by not asserting and/or fighting for their rights.


FARK YOU! Going through some seriously biased crap in both CT and MA courts. If things are better in CO, great for you but don't, for one second, think that applies everywhere or that men griping about being shafted is their fault.

So what is it with you? Willfully ignorant or just trolling?


Him and Mike Chewbacca's current SOs are standing over them with stick in hand.
 
2013-02-07 10:00:24 PM  

SauceIT: jst3p:The only guys I know personally who feel like they get shafted by the system allowed it to happen by not asserting and/or fighting for their rights.


FARK YOU! Going through some seriously biased crap in both CT and MA courts. If things are better in CO, great for you but don't, for one second, think that applies everywhere or that men griping about being shafted is their fault.

So what is it with you? Willfully ignorant or just trolling?


If you look higher in the thread Jst3p responds to himself saying "Hey dumbass your link doesn't say what you think it says" He must be juggling alts.

jst3p: jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.

Hey dumbass, your link doesn't say what you think it says!

 
2013-02-07 10:21:14 PM  
Gwendolyn SmartestFunniest  2013-02-07 08:11:35 AM He is paying .07% of his income from Two and a Half Men a month to help maintain a home for his son to visit and who may be placed back there at any time. That's like a guy who makes $60,000 handing over $35 each month. I don't think that's completely unreasonable.fark you
 
2013-02-07 10:27:38 PM  
actually I said FfarkK you to Gwendylon mr fark
 
2013-02-07 10:28:26 PM  
pphark you then
 
2013-02-07 10:29:11 PM  
phucc listen I a, going to keep doing this till one comes out right
 
2013-02-07 10:46:49 PM  

SauceIT: jst3p:The only guys I know personally who feel like they get shafted by the system allowed it to happen by not asserting and/or fighting for their rights.


FARK YOU! Going through some seriously biased crap in both CT and MA courts. If things are better in CO, great for you but don't, for one second, think that applies everywhere or that men griping about being shafted is their fault.

So what is it with you? Willfully ignorant or just trolling?


Perhaps your anger management issues are part of your custody battle problems.

I realize that I am just being a dick now, but you escalated that pretty quickly.
 
2013-02-07 10:47:31 PM  

Gergesa: SauceIT: jst3p:The only guys I know personally who feel like they get shafted by the system allowed it to happen by not asserting and/or fighting for their rights.


FARK YOU! Going through some seriously biased crap in both CT and MA courts. If things are better in CO, great for you but don't, for one second, think that applies everywhere or that men griping about being shafted is their fault.

So what is it with you? Willfully ignorant or just trolling?

If you look higher in the thread Jst3p responds to himself saying "Hey dumbass your link doesn't say what you think it says" He must be juggling alts.

jst3p: jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.

Hey dumbass, your link doesn't say what you think it says!


No, I was making a joke about how many times it was pointed out that I screwed up.
 
2013-02-07 10:48:38 PM  

kvinesknows: phucc listen I a, going to keep doing this till one comes out right


There is a filter, there are ways to get around it but I wouldn't advise it.
 
2013-02-08 01:12:56 AM  

jst3p: kvinesknows: phucc listen I a, going to keep doing this till one comes out right

There is a filter, there are ways to get around it but I wouldn't advise it.


Nah, keep going, let's see if he can figure it out...
 
2013-02-08 07:40:55 AM  
This is what happens when you put your dick in crazy
 
2013-02-08 08:00:20 AM  

people: MacWizard: people: Bhruic: It certainly is unreasonable.  The "he's rich, so it's ok" defense just doesn't cut it.

Its also assuming that he is going to make this money for the rest of his life.  He isn't.  This is his peak earning time.

Not for the rest of his life, just for the next 10 years or so.

I'm not going even look it up.  I'll just concede that.  Why?

Flip the genders.  There would be an outrage, with cries shaming the male.

It is amazing how people tolerate this gendered bias in family courts.


Sorry to be so tardy in responding.

"Jon and Sarah were married in 2000.  Both were actors at the time.  They had a son, but divorced in 2004..."

The kid is somewhere around 9-11 years old. You only pay child support until the child is 18. So probably less than 10 years.
 
2013-02-08 08:07:16 AM  
Wonder if he could pay the whole thing off in one payment, and call it a day...
 
2013-02-08 08:45:40 AM  

Hugo Zorilla: jst3p: kvinesknows: phucc listen I a, going to keep doing this till one comes out right

There is a filter, there are ways to get around it but I wouldn't advise it.

Nah, keep going, let's see if he can figure it out...


meh. phuc you Gwendylon is the closest I can come
 
2013-02-08 08:46:18 AM  

MacWizard: You only pay child support until the child is 18.


hahaha.... no
 
2013-02-08 08:46:58 AM  

Hugo Zorilla: Wonder if he could pay the whole thing off in one payment, and call it a day...


nope

the mother could go out and spend it all... and just like she is blameless now, she would be blameless then and he would still have to pay even more support.
 
2013-02-08 09:00:53 AM  

kvinesknows: MacWizard: You only pay child support until the child is 18.

hahaha.... no


In California, the age of majority is 18.

"18 years except an unmarried child who has attained the age of 18 years, is a full-time high school student, and who is not self-supporting, is considered a minor until the time the child completes the 12th grade or attains the age of 19 years, whichever occurs first."

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/termination-of-ch il d-support-age-of-majority.aspx
 
2013-02-08 04:40:04 PM  

kvinesknows: Hugo Zorilla: Wonder if he could pay the whole thing off in one payment, and call it a day...

nope

the mother could go out and spend it all... and just like she is blameless now, she would be blameless then and he would still have to pay even more support.


Ah.

Can he demand an accounting of where the money is going?
 
2013-02-08 06:56:50 PM  

Hugo Zorilla: kvinesknows: Hugo Zorilla: Wonder if he could pay the whole thing off in one payment, and call it a day...

nope

the mother could go out and spend it all... and just like she is blameless now, she would be blameless then and he would still have to pay even more support.

Ah.

Can he demand an accounting of where the money is going?


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*wipes tear*

That's a good one.
 
2013-02-08 07:19:46 PM  

Bhruic: Gwendolyn: He is paying .07% of his income from Two and a Half Men a month to help maintain a home for his son to visit and who may be placed back there at any time. That's like a guy who makes $60,000 handing over $35 each month. I don't think that's completely unreasonable.

It certainly is unreasonable.  The "he's rich, so it's ok" defense just doesn't cut it.  Can he afford to pay the money?  Certainly.  No one is arguing it's going to make him poor.  That doesn't make it reasonable.  The idea that it costs 96K per year simply to "maintain a home" that the kid sees maybe one day a month is lunacy.

This is an absolutely clear case of a person living off the money of someone else because she's too lazy to do anything for herself.  Being enabled by the courts is adding insult to injury.


Certainly explains why the Fark liberals are falling all over themselves to defend her.
 
2013-02-08 11:37:53 PM  

jst3p: Hugo Zorilla: kvinesknows: Hugo Zorilla: Wonder if he could pay the whole thing off in one payment, and call it a day...

nope

the mother could go out and spend it all... and just like she is blameless now, she would be blameless then and he would still have to pay even more support.

Ah.

Can he demand an accounting of where the money is going?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*wipes tear*

That's a good one.


I take it that's a "no".
/never been divorced
//no kids
///not a lawyer, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn once...
 
2013-02-09 12:42:00 AM  

Hugo Zorilla: jst3p: Hugo Zorilla: kvinesknows: Hugo Zorilla: Wonder if he could pay the whole thing off in one payment, and call it a day...

nope

the mother could go out and spend it all... and just like she is blameless now, she would be blameless then and he would still have to pay even more support.

Ah.

Can he demand an accounting of where the money is going?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*wipes tear*

That's a good one.

I take it that's a "no".
/never been divorced
//no kids
///not a lawyer, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn once...


She could be a meth head and the women's groups would still fall over themselves to defend her right to spend the money as she pleased without the shadow of a patriarchal fascist system controlling her.
 
Displayed 160 of 160 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report