Child Support Enforcement A Fraud

http://www.krightsradio.com/06csenforcementafraud.php
Child Support Enforcement A Fraud

By Bruce Eden

After reading the article "NYS Child Support Collections Top $1.5 Billion"
(Feb. 25, 2006), the words that come to mind are "fraud", "scam",
"extortion", "racketeering" and "government oppression".

The state talks a good story about how all the increased child support
enforcement and collections benefits the children. This is pure fantasy. The
monies that the state awards, enforces and collects is directly proportional
to how much it receives from the federal government as incentive
reimbursement funding.

And that amount is in the several hundreds of millions of dollars. The
monies that the state receives for child support enforcement has no strings
attached. The state uses this funding to bolster their state employee and
judicial pension plans. Sounds like a massive conflict of interest and
criminal conspiracy to me. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Tumey v. Ohio,
Ward v. Monroeville and Gibson v. Berryhill that judges cannot sit on cases
where they have a pecuniary interest in them because it would be a
demonstration of actual bias.

Yet, judges, or state employed judicial hearing officers, in the domestic
relations courts, sit on these cases every day. This has created a tyranny
by having the state criminalize a civil matter. As stated in the article, it
says that the district attorneys are getting into the act in prosecuting
people for child support arrearages.

Again, this is a blatant due process and equal protection violation. When
were the payor parents told, at the inception of the child support matter,
that the matter would be converted from a civil case into a criminal case?
When were they read their Miranda rights, such as right to remain silent
about their financial situation, or given their right to trial by jury or
right to appointed, competent effective counsel to defend them properly.

As can be seen by this lack of substantive due process, the entire child
support enforcement mechanism is a fraud and a scam that smacks of
racketeering. If any debt collection agency did this for any other debt,
they be facing massive fines and criminal charges. They would be put out of
business immediately.

New York State claims it is going after so-called "deadbeats" by
criminalizing child support delinquencies and jailing those with large
arrearages. Sounds good. However, if one were to investigate the situation
they would find that most of the state's largest delinquent child support
obligors are unemployed, underemployed, undereducated, disabled, minorities,
or deceased. That's right-deceased! The state needs to keep those numbers on
its books in order to maximize the federal funding it receives.

According to a 7-year longitudinal academic study done by Arizona State
University that became the book, "Divorced Dads-Shattering the Myths", it
was uncovered that less than 5% of all delinquent child support payors are
true "deadbeats"-those with the expensive sports cars and trophy wives half
their age. So, where is the child support "deadbeat" hysteria? There is
none. It is being contrived by the federal and state governments in order to
control families, steal children, and eliminate fathers from families so
that the state can become the "super-parent". It is another tyrannical
government program to extract money from taxpayers to support the government's
own largesse.

The state defrauds the taxpayers by claiming they are doing it "for the
children". The government never does something for its citizens without a
quid pro quo. In the U.S. Supreme Court case DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Board of Social Services, the high Court ruled that the state owes no duty
to protect its citizens. So, the question begs: "Why is the state
discriminating against one-half of the population to enforce child support?"
It is obvious. It is not about the children or getting people off of
welfare. It is about how much money the states can rake in so they can
appropriate more money from the feds to balance their own budgets.

Federal child support enforcement laws were designed solely for TANF
(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and for welfare families. It was
never designed for the "never-welfared" middle class. However, child support
bureaucrats and other hangers-on testified before Congress that they needed
to bring the middle-class into the fray in order to receive maximum benefits
from the federal government in order to bolster state budgets.
Interestingly, not one child support payor, or any advocacy group for child
support payors was allowed to testify before Congress and the New York State
legislature (or for any other state for that matter) in devising child
support enforcement legislation. Again, we see a pattern of racketeering
conspiracy and government tyranny at the expense of innocent taxpayers.

There is a large hue and cry across the country to curtail divorces because
it threatens the very fabric of our society. The reason is because one
parent is allowed to divorce the other without any grounds. One parent can
divorce and abuse the legal system to win the divorce, all of the money and
assets of the marriage, and win custody of the children (with all the
attendant financial benefits that come with this). It's all because of child
support. Child support enforcement has created the "divorce state". Not only
does child support increase the amount of divorces because of the financial
windfall to the custody-winning parent, it threatens society. Child support
enforcement laws are in reality a threat to national security.

The time has come for lawmakers to take a second look at the draconian child
support enforcement laws in this country because these laws are not
constitutional. Child support enforcement laws are a threat to national
security. To stop this threat, lawmakers either need to eliminate or
seriously curtail child support enforcement against innocent taxpayers, or
they must tax child support the way alimony is taxed. This would immediately
slow down divorces in this country. This is because the custodial parent,
(in over 80% of all cases it is the mother-further gender discrimination
against males), would think twice about divorcing on grounds that their
marriage is not satisfactory, before having to pay the additional large
income tax burden.

Bruce Eden is the director of DADS (Dads Against Discrimination),
New Jersey and New York chapters,
Fathers Rights Association of New Jersey,
PO Box 4075, Wayne, NJ 07474
(973) 616-9558

child support affects all involved in the situation. the absent parent
has to pay and pay and cannot claim the children on their income tax as
dependents and the custodial parent does not have to claim it as
income. in the meantime, the irs views the absent parent as single and
taxes them as such, giving no credit for the thousands of dollars paid
to the dependent children and in most cases they owe the irs and the
custodial parent for the rest of their working lives. it sucks and is
not done fairly.
Dusty wrote:
http://www.krightsradio.com/06csenforcementafraud.php
Child Support Enforcement A Fraud

By Bruce Eden

After reading the article "NYS Child Support Collections Top $1.5 Billion"
(Feb. 25, 2006), the words that come to mind are "fraud", "scam",
"extortion", "racketeering" and "government oppression".

The state talks a good story about how all the increased child support
enforcement and collections benefits the children. This is pure fantasy. The
monies that the state awards, enforces and collects is directly proportional
to how much it receives from the federal government as incentive
reimbursement funding.

And that amount is in the several hundreds of millions of dollars. The
monies that the state receives for child support enforcement has no strings
attached. The state uses this funding to bolster their state employee and
judicial pension plans. Sounds like a massive conflict of interest and
criminal conspiracy to me. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Tumey v. Ohio,
Ward v. Monroeville and Gibson v. Berryhill that judges cannot sit on cases
where they have a pecuniary interest in them because it would be a
demonstration of actual bias.

Yet, judges, or state employed judicial hearing officers, in the domestic
relations courts, sit on these cases every day. This has created a tyranny
by having the state criminalize a civil matter. As stated in the article, it
says that the district attorneys are getting into the act in prosecuting
people for child support arrearages.

Again, this is a blatant due process and equal protection violation. When
were the payor parents told, at the inception of the child support matter,
that the matter would be converted from a civil case into a criminal case?
When were they read their Miranda rights, such as right to remain silent
about their financial situation, or given their right to trial by jury or
right to appointed, competent effective counsel to defend them properly.

As can be seen by this lack of substantive due process, the entire child
support enforcement mechanism is a fraud and a scam that smacks of
racketeering. If any debt collection agency did this for any other debt,
they be facing massive fines and criminal charges. They would be put out of
business immediately.

New York State claims it is going after so-called "deadbeats" by
criminalizing child support delinquencies and jailing those with large
arrearages. Sounds good. However, if one were to investigate the situation
they would find that most of the state's largest delinquent child support
obligors are unemployed, underemployed, undereducated, disabled, minorities,
or deceased. That's right-deceased! The state needs to keep those numbers on
its books in order to maximize the federal funding it receives.

According to a 7-year longitudinal academic study done by Arizona State
University that became the book, "Divorced Dads-Shattering the Myths", it
was uncovered that less than 5% of all delinquent child support payors are
true "deadbeats"-those with the expensive sports cars and trophy wives half
their age. So, where is the child support "deadbeat" hysteria? There is
none. It is being contrived by the federal and state governments in order to
control families, steal children, and eliminate fathers from families so
that the state can become the "super-parent". It is another tyrannical
government program to extract money from taxpayers to support the government's
own largesse.

The state defrauds the taxpayers by claiming they are doing it "for the
children". The government never does something for its citizens without a
quid pro quo. In the U.S. Supreme Court case DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Board of Social Services, the high Court ruled that the state owes no duty
to protect its citizens. So, the question begs: "Why is the state
discriminating against one-half of the population to enforce child support?"
It is obvious. It is not about the children or getting people off of
welfare. It is about how much money the states can rake in so they can
appropriate more money from the feds to balance their own budgets.

Federal child support enforcement laws were designed solely for TANF
(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and for welfare families. It was
never designed for the "never-welfared" middle class. However, child support
bureaucrats and other hangers-on testified before Congress that they needed
to bring the middle-class into the fray in order to receive maximum benefits
from the federal government in order to bolster state budgets.
Interestingly, not one child support payor, or any advocacy group for child
support payors was allowed to testify before Congress and the New York State
legislature (or for any other state for that matter) in devising child
support enforcement legislation. Again, we see a pattern of racketeering
conspiracy and government tyranny at the expense of innocent taxpayers.

There is a large hue and cry across the country to curtail divorces because
it threatens the very fabric of our society. The reason is because one
parent is allowed to divorce the other without any grounds. One parent can
divorce and abuse the legal system to win the divorce, all of the money and
assets of the marriage, and win custody of the children (with all the
attendant financial benefits that come with this). It's all because of child
support. Child support enforcement has created the "divorce state". Not only
does child support increase the amount of divorces because of the financial
windfall to the custody-winning parent, it threatens society. Child support
enforcement laws are in reality a threat to national security.

The time has come for lawmakers to take a second look at the draconian child
support enforcement laws in this country because these laws are not
constitutional. Child support enforcement laws are a threat to national
security. To stop this threat, lawmakers either need to eliminate or
seriously curtail child support enforcement against innocent taxpayers, or
they must tax child support the way alimony is taxed. This would immediately
slow down divorces in this country. This is because the custodial parent,
(in over 80% of all cases it is the mother-further gender discrimination
against males), would think twice about divorcing on grounds that their
marriage is not satisfactory, before having to pay the additional large
income tax burden.

Bruce Eden is the director of DADS (Dads Against Discrimination),
New Jersey and New York chapters,
Fathers Rights Association of New Jersey,
PO Box 4075, Wayne, NJ 07474
(973) 616-9558

I am a custodial father of three children and the amount of child support
that is paid by most NCP is not enough to support a DOG!
My ex wife pays $195 (at most - when she does pay) a MONTH for 3 growing
teenagers!

I have FULL medical, dental and optical on my children at a cost of $250 a
month (not counting what i pay for myself or my current wife's Medical
insurance)
My grocery bill is around $550 a month! I have a son that is Autistic and
requires special attention and care which costs more than $200 a month (when
i can afford it)
School lunches are another $150 a month (on top of the $550 For groceries)

I did some math a few times it would be cheaper for me to give the kids back
to the ex-wife and pay her $250 or $300 a week!
(though I would not do that - and she wouldnt take them anyhow)

There is a LOT of hidden costs in raising a child that dont always get
brought up or thought of.
For example my car insurance went up $1800 a year (teenage daughter driver
ya know) and no she doesnt have any tickets or accidents.

between my current wife staying home to raise the children (which with an
autistic child is a full time job) and all the expenses I figure between
cost
and lost wages it costs my wife and I about $40,000 a year to keep them!!
and I get $2,300 in child support If I was doing it for anything other
than
the benifit of my children I would be a fool to make that sort of financial
decision!

My ex-wife chose to work in the Fast Food industry no one made her do it,
she claims like many other NCP to being ripped-off, nothing could be
further from the truth. She was making $8 to $9 an hour at one job and
working a 2nd job as a waitress at Denny's (which she recently quit)(30k/yr
between both)
she was ordered to keep MEDICAL insurance on the children but was able to
cancel the insurance against court order and did not tell me till months
later!

I see many NCP ordered to pay as little at $18 a month, what is the deal
with that??? Then they are over a year behind on that? Those people need
to be locked up for 90 and have the support order set higher! My ex-wife
did not pay the first 18 months we were sepperated and refused to help
financially with anything, rather she was asking me for money!!

To be truthful I do EARN more than my ex (60k/yr) , but that is NO reason
for me to hold the brunt end of this financially!

Child Support is a MUST but needs to be based on the COST of raising a child
FIRST then income second.

when i buy groceries they dont ask what my income is, when i buy gas they
dont ask my income, when i pay a doctor bill they dont ask my income.

Child support needs to "support" the child while not supporting the "ex"
using real costs of raising a child!!


Robert



"msarcasm" wrote in message
ups.com...
child support affects all involved in the situation. the absent parent
has to pay and pay and cannot claim the children on their income tax as
dependents and the custodial parent does not have to claim it as
income. in the meantime, the irs views the absent parent as single and
taxes them as such, giving no credit for the thousands of dollars paid
to the dependent children and in most cases they owe the irs and the
custodial parent for the rest of their working lives. it sucks and is
not done fairly.
Dusty wrote:
http://www.krightsradio.com/06csenforcementafraud.php
Child Support Enforcement A Fraud

By Bruce Eden

After reading the article "NYS Child Support Collections Top $1.5
Billion"
(Feb. 25, 2006), the words that come to mind are "fraud", "scam",
"extortion", "racketeering" and "government oppression".

The state talks a good story about how all the increased child support
enforcement and collections benefits the children. This is pure fantasy.
The
monies that the state awards, enforces and collects is directly
proportional
to how much it receives from the federal government as incentive
reimbursement funding.

And that amount is in the several hundreds of millions of dollars. The
monies that the state receives for child support enforcement has no
strings
attached. The state uses this funding to bolster their state employee and
judicial pension plans. Sounds like a massive conflict of interest and
criminal conspiracy to me. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Tumey v. Ohio,
Ward v. Monroeville and Gibson v. Berryhill that judges cannot sit on
cases
where they have a pecuniary interest in them because it would be a
demonstration of actual bias.

Yet, judges, or state employed judicial hearing officers, in the domestic
relations courts, sit on these cases every day. This has created a
tyranny
by having the state criminalize a civil matter. As stated in the article,
it
says that the district attorneys are getting into the act in prosecuting
people for child support arrearages.

Again, this is a blatant due process and equal protection violation. When
were the payor parents told, at the inception of the child support
matter,
that the matter would be converted from a civil case into a criminal
case?
When were they read their Miranda rights, such as right to remain silent
about their financial situation, or given their right to trial by jury or
right to appointed, competent effective counsel to defend them properly.

As can be seen by this lack of substantive due process, the entire child
support enforcement mechanism is a fraud and a scam that smacks of
racketeering. If any debt collection agency did this for any other debt,
they be facing massive fines and criminal charges. They would be put out
of
business immediately.

New York State claims it is going after so-called "deadbeats" by
criminalizing child support delinquencies and jailing those with large
arrearages. Sounds good. However, if one were to investigate the
situation
they would find that most of the state's largest delinquent child support
obligors are unemployed, underemployed, undereducated, disabled,
minorities,
or deceased. That's right-deceased! The state needs to keep those numbers
on
its books in order to maximize the federal funding it receives.

According to a 7-year longitudinal academic study done by Arizona State
University that became the book, "Divorced Dads-Shattering the Myths", it
was uncovered that less than 5% of all delinquent child support payors
are
true "deadbeats"-those with the expensive sports cars and trophy wives
half
their age. So, where is the child support "deadbeat" hysteria? There is
none. It is being contrived by the federal and state governments in order
to
control families, steal children, and eliminate fathers from families so
that the state can become the "super-parent". It is another tyrannical
government program to extract money from taxpayers to support the
government's
own largesse.

The state defrauds the taxpayers by claiming they are doing it "for the
children". The government never does something for its citizens without a
quid pro quo. In the U.S. Supreme Court case DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Board of Social Services, the high Court ruled that the state owes no
duty
to protect its citizens. So, the question begs: "Why is the state
discriminating against one-half of the population to enforce child
support?"
It is obvious. It is not about the children or getting people off of
welfare. It is about how much money the states can rake in so they can
appropriate more money from the feds to balance their own budgets.

Federal child support enforcement laws were designed solely for TANF
(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and for welfare families. It
was
never designed for the "never-welfared" middle class. However, child
support
bureaucrats and other hangers-on testified before Congress that they
needed
to bring the middle-class into the fray in order to receive maximum
benefits
from the federal government in order to bolster state budgets.
Interestingly, not one child support payor, or any advocacy group for
child
support payors was allowed to testify before Congress and the New York
State
legislature (or for any other state for that matter) in devising child
support enforcement legislation. Again, we see a pattern of racketeering
conspiracy and government tyranny at the expense of innocent taxpayers.

There is a large hue and cry across the country to curtail divorces
because
it threatens the very fabric of our society. The reason is because one
parent is allowed to divorce the other without any grounds. One parent
can
divorce and abuse the legal system to win the divorce, all of the money
and
assets of the marriage, and win custody of the children (with all the
attendant financial benefits that come with this). It's all because of
child
support. Child support enforcement has created the "divorce state". Not
only
does child support increase the amount of divorces because of the
financial
windfall to the custody-winning parent, it threatens society. Child
support
enforcement laws are in reality a threat to national security.

The time has come for lawmakers to take a second look at the draconian
child
support enforcement laws in this country because these laws are not
constitutional. Child support enforcement laws are a threat to national
security. To stop this threat, lawmakers either need to eliminate or
seriously curtail child support enforcement against innocent taxpayers,
or
they must tax child support the way alimony is taxed. This would
immediately
slow down divorces in this country. This is because the custodial parent,
(in over 80% of all cases it is the mother-further gender discrimination
against males), would think twice about divorcing on grounds that their
marriage is not satisfactory, before having to pay the additional large
income tax burden.

Bruce Eden is the director of DADS (Dads Against Discrimination),
New Jersey and New York chapters,
Fathers Rights Association of New Jersey,
PO Box 4075, Wayne, NJ 07474
(973) 616-9558

I am a custodial father of three children and the amount of child support
that is paid by most NCP is not enough to support a DOG!
My ex wife pays $195 (at most - when she does pay) a MONTH for 3 growing
teenagers!

I have FULL medical, dental and optical on my children at a cost of $250 a
month (not counting what i pay for myself or my current wife's Medical
insurance)
she was ordered to keep MEDICAL insurance on the children but was able to
cancel the insurance against court order and did not tell me till months
later!

Well that's $3000/yr. that she's blowing off (among other things), so why not
get the court to enforce the medical insurance coverage thing? Take her back
to court to get it. If she cancelled it, that's a direct violation of
support.

"Robert" wrote in message
. ..
I am a custodial father of three children and the amount of child support
that is paid by most NCP is not enough to support a DOG!
My ex wife pays $195 (at most - when she does pay) a MONTH for 3 growing
teenagers!

I have FULL medical, dental and optical on my children at a cost of $250 a
month (not counting what i pay for myself or my current wife's Medical
insurance)

Well, your and your current wife's medical plan are not the responsibility
of your ex in any case.

My grocery bill is around $550 a month!

I'm assuming that, by mentioning the $550, you are indicating that your
current wife and yourself do not eat any of the groceries, right? How much
are groceries for JUST the children? How much is "fluff food" and how much
is for necessities?

I have a son that is Autistic and
requires special attention and care which costs more than $200 a month
(when i can afford it)

Aer the public schools doing their part for your son? They should be! What
is the $200 per month for?

School lunches are another $150 a month (on top of the $550 For groceries)

What's wrong with sack lunches? From thet $550 worth of groceries per month.


I did some math a few times it would be cheaper for me to give the kids
back to the ex-wife and pay her $250 or $300 a week!
(though I would not do that - and she wouldnt take them anyhow)

What a wonderful father, figuring out how much less he would have to spend
if the kids weren't around!


There is a LOT of hidden costs in raising a child that dont always get
brought up or thought of.
For example my car insurance went up $1800 a year (teenage daughter driver
ya know) and no she doesnt have any tickets or accidents.

Having your daughter drive is a choice that *you* made. Why should your ex
have to pay for your choices?


between my current wife staying home to raise the children (which with an
autistic child is a full time job) and all the expenses I figure between
cost
and lost wages it costs my wife and I about $40,000 a year to keep them!!

Wow! My husband and I have 2 daughters, and we don't spend nearly that much
on them! You've mentioned $13000 worth of expenses with food, insurance,
and extras for your autistic son (and I do realize that it is difficult to
have an autistic child). That would be $6500 if divided evenly between you
and your ex. What brings it up to $40,000?

and I get $2,300 in child support If I was doing it for anything other
than
the benifit of my children I would be a fool to make that sort of
financial decision!

My ex-wife chose to work in the Fast Food industry no one made her do it,
she claims like many other NCP to being ripped-off, nothing could be
further from the truth. She was making $8 to $9 an hour at one job and
working a 2nd job as a waitress at Denny's (which she recently
quit)(30k/yr between both)
she was ordered to keep MEDICAL insurance on the children but was able to
cancel the insurance against court order and did not tell me till months
later!

That is sad. Good thing you have insurance available to you. Do you really
spend $250 in medical costs per month on you children?


I see many NCP ordered to pay as little at $18 a month, what is the deal
with that??? Then they are over a year behind on that? Those people need
to be locked up for 90 and have the support order set higher! My ex-wife
did not pay the first 18 months we were sepperated and refused to help
financially with anything, rather she was asking me for money!!

Well, as sad as it is that that happened to you, it still gives you no right
to make such judgements about other NCPs because you do not know their
situations. My husband pays wa-a-a-ay more than $195 per month--every
month. He pays more in child support than we spend on our 2 girls--and it's
the custodial parent who contributes absolutely nothing. What do you think
should be done to custodial parents who don't lift a finger to support their
own children, Robert?



To be truthful I do EARN more than my ex (60k/yr) , but that is NO reason
for me to hold the brunt end of this financially!

Child Support is a MUST but needs to be based on the COST of raising a
child FIRST then income second.

Unfortunately, the "COSTS" can be greatly expanded by those who want to do
so. Child Support should be based on what it actually costs to provide the
child with basic necessities and nothing else. No McDona;d's, no baseball
and basketball, no computers or playstations, no designer clothes and
shoes--basic necessities. And loving parents who interact with their
children will provide the rest because they WANT to--not because they are
forced to.


when i buy groceries they dont ask what my income is, when i buy gas they
dont ask my income, when i pay a doctor bill they dont ask my income.

But YOU get to choose what and how much you buy based on what you know you
have. Why should child support be any different?


Child support needs to "support" the child while not supporting the "ex"
using real costs of raising a child!!

Real costs for basic necessities. I agree!

"Robert" wrote
I am a custodial father of three children and the amount of child support
that is paid by most NCP is not enough to support a DOG!
My ex wife pays $195 (at most - when she does pay) a MONTH for 3 growing
teenagers!
==
But, you *chose* to leave and you *chose* to take the kids with you. If you
didn't want
to accept the responsibility for those choices, you should have chosen
differently. Your ex
wife should not have to fund *your* choices.

Gini wrote:
"Robert" wrote
I am a custodial father of three children and the amount of child support
that is paid by most NCP is not enough to support a DOG!
My ex wife pays $195 (at most - when she does pay) a MONTH for 3 growing
teenagers!
==
But, you *chose* to leave and you *chose* to take the kids with you. If
you
didn't want to accept the responsibility for those choices, you should
have chosen
differently.

"responsibility"??? Today? In today's, newage, world??? Dream
on....

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
k.net...
Gini wrote:
"Robert" wrote
I am a custodial father of three children and the amount of child
support
that is paid by most NCP is not enough to support a DOG!
My ex wife pays $195 (at most - when she does pay) a MONTH for 3 growing
teenagers!
==
But, you *chose* to leave and you *chose* to take the kids with you. If
you
didn't want to accept the responsibility for those choices, you should
have chosen
differently.

"responsibility"??? Today? In today's, newage, world??? Dream
on....


It will be a cold day in hell before the feminists accept responsibility for
their sole and unilateral choices.

"P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote

"Bill in Co." wrote in message

Gini wrote:
"Robert" wrote
I am a custodial father of three children and the amount of child
support
that is paid by most NCP is not enough to support a DOG!
My ex wife pays $195 (at most - when she does pay) a MONTH for 3
growing
teenagers!
==
But, you *chose* to leave and you *chose* to take the kids with you. If
you
didn't want to accept the responsibility for those choices, you should
have chosen
differently.

"responsibility"??? Today? In today's, newage, world??? Dream
on....


It will be a cold day in hell before the feminists accept responsibility
for their sole and unilateral choices.
==
Ummm...The OP, to whom my comments were directed, is a man--a custodial
father.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:twvBg.103$AF1.101@trndny03...

"Robert" wrote
I am a custodial father of three children and the amount of child support
that is paid by most NCP is not enough to support a DOG!
My ex wife pays $195 (at most - when she does pay) a MONTH for 3 growing
teenagers!
==
But, you *chose* to leave and you *chose* to take the kids with you. If
you didn't want
to accept the responsibility for those choices, you should have chosen
differently. Your ex
wife should not have to fund *your* choices.


Did I miss where he said he choice to leave or take the kids?

I thought he said she wouldn't take the kids.....

So possibly he didn't choice to raise the kids alone.

Either way, he is just frustrated by the amounts of money he thinks it takes
to raise kids. I think if he really looked at his budget, he would see
plenty of money that could be saved and then wouldn't be so angry about the
small amount he gets from the EX.

And you all have to admit, that is a small amount for more then one kid. But
its better then nothing!