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.

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...

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.

I wonder how much cheaper it would be to have her killed.

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.

This is what happens when you put your dick in crazy

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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"?