Here’s one for you misogynists. Kid has not been seen in 3 years, almost certainly dead, Mom still collecting child support from Dad.
http://bangordailynews.com/2014/11/03/news/ayla-reynolds-mother-seeks-continued-child-support/
There can never be a war on men. There can only be individual cases of women or the system treating men badly.
Here’s one for you misogynists. Kid has not been seen in 3 years, almost certainly dead, Mom still collecting child support from Dad.http://bangordailynews.com/...inued-child-support/
I understand the emotional significance of her wanting to keep getting the checks, but I always thought child support payments were made to support the child. If the child has been missing for 3 years, what kind of “support” is his $82/week paying for?
Only in theory. Nothing says the mother can’t spend it on anything she pleases and there is no requirement to show receipts if any kind.
Only in theory. Nothing says the mother can’t spend it on anything she pleases and there is no requirement to show receipts if any kind.
Yeah but one would think that in theory without a child there would be no child support payment.
Only in theory. Nothing says the mother can’t spend it on anything she pleases and there is no requirement to show receipts if any kind.
Yeah but one would think that in theory without a child there would be no child support payment.
^^^^This.
Once the reason for the child support payment is gone, you would think it would be a simple matter to petition the court to end the payment . . . or at least temporarily suspend it until it is determined that the child is alive and actually needs to be supported.
Only in theory. Nothing says the mother can’t spend it on anything she pleases and there is no requirement to show receipts if any kind.
I wonder if there’s any chance that this mother who basically seems to be in denial about her daughter and claims she’s fighting for her has what must be more than $10k by now in a bank account waiting for her when they find her or if it’s already spent?
There can never be a war on men. There can only be individual cases of women or the system treating men badly.
Never? Does it not stand to reason that at such a point that one group has more power then the other that the one in power can then abuse that power?
~Matt
There can never be a war on men. There can only be individual cases of women or the system treating men badly.
Never? Does it not stand to reason that at such a point that one group has more power then the other that the one in power can then abuse that power?
~Matt
Reason? Are you crazy? I was just throwing the standard progressive line out there as a gag.
However, as I think about it, it does explain my feelings somewhat. I think the “War on Women” campaign is a divisive, fear-mongering, appeal to stupidity. I’m glad to see it fail spectacularly at the ballot box. So why would I want to make the same mistake going the other way?
Do I really think there is a “War on Men”? Maybe by the most out of touch fringes of feminism. But they aren’t calling any shots. The correct answer is: no. A lot of these divorce arrangements and standards stem from a desire to protect the interests of women – women who can be extremely vulnerable during a divorce – not from a hatred of men. Some of the laws and practices may be unjust or need to be modified. Let’s state our particular case and get them modified. A “War on Men” campaign will just antagonize over half the electorate, and make the accusers seem stupid and petty. For people seeking real justice it will be worse than a waste of time.
Only in theory. Nothing says the mother can’t spend it on anything she pleases and there is no requirement to show receipts if any kind.
I wonder if there’s any chance that this mother who basically seems to be in denial about her daughter and claims she’s fighting for her has what must be more than $10k by now in a bank account waiting for her when they find her or if it’s already spent?
There is no way that this money is sitting in a bank account waiting for the daughter. The mom is using this money to fund her lifestyle. This is exactly what I would ask the judge. I would say if this money is for my daughter then it shouldn’t have been spent since she is missing. If it had been spent I would ask him to end the payments since it was being used for purposes other than my daughter. If it hadn’t been spent and was sitting in a bank account somewhere I would say that I will continue to pay but that bank account would need to be a joint bank account and both of us would have to be present to withdrawal money. But when the authorities declare he dead I get all the money back. And if I was the father I would give it 2 more years and then start seeing how you can get the child legally declared dead. I think this is a fair compromise.
women who can be extremely vulnerable during a divorce
What exactly makes a woman extremely vulnerable during divorce as compared to a man?
Only in theory. Nothing says the mother can’t spend it on anything she pleases and there is no requirement to show receipts if any kind.
I wonder if there’s any chance that this mother who basically seems to be in denial about her daughter and claims she’s fighting for her has what must be more than $10k by now in a bank account waiting for her when they find her or if it’s already spent?
There is no way that this money is sitting in a bank account waiting for the daughter. The mom is using this money to fund her lifestyle. This is exactly what I would ask the judge. I would say if this money is for my daughter then it shouldn’t have been spent since she is missing. If it had been spent I would ask him to end the payments since it was being used for purposes other than my daughter. If it hadn’t been spent and was sitting in a bank account somewhere I would say that I will continue to pay but that bank account would need to be a joint bank account and both of us would have to be present to withdrawal money. But when the authorities declare he dead I get all the money back. And if I was the father I would give it 2 more years and then start seeing how you can get the child legally declared dead. I think this is a fair compromise.
Why does there need to be a compromise? If the mother is not supporting a child, why should the father pay any child support? If the child was still here, but custody was removed from the mother for some reason, the father wouldn’t still be required to pay the mother child support payments.
women who can be extremely vulnerable during a divorce
What exactly makes a woman extremely vulnerable during divorce as compared to a man?
For couples with a single bread-winner that bread-winner tends to be the man.
For couples with a person primarily in charge of investments that tends to be the man.
Our culture emphasizes the role of the mother in raising children, and that takes money.
The word “vulnerable” applies to the woman’s financial interests during the divorce.
women who can be extremely vulnerable during a divorce
What exactly makes a woman extremely vulnerable during divorce as compared to a man?
Would you say it’s more common in a marriage for the woman to be economically dependent on the man, or vice versa?
For couples with a single bread-winner that bread-winner tends to be the man.
That dopesn’t make “women” vulnerable during divorce. It makes women with no jobs vulnerable to having to find income after divorce.
For couples with a person primarily in charge of investments that tends to be the man.
So the fact that a husband manages investments makes his wife vulnerable during divorce? Unless you mean that the guy could try to hide those investments (which is illegal), I’m not buying it.
Our culture emphasizes the role of the mother in raising children, and that takes money.
Which has nothing to do with women being vulnerable during divorce.
The word “vulnerable” applies to the woman’s financial interests during the divorce.
The word “vulnerable” means open to or defenseless against attack. The fact that some women might need or want more money than she has access to because she wants custody of kids or never got a job doesn’t make “women” vulnerable. It just means that this specific woman is going to have challenges to face. That’s part of the math all people have to do when they consider divorce.
He needs to hire a private eye to show the judge what she’s been spending that money on…
Only in theory. Nothing says the mother can’t spend it on anything she pleases and there is no requirement to show receipts if any kind.
I wonder if there’s any chance that this mother who basically seems to be in denial about her daughter and claims she’s fighting for her has what must be more than $10k by now in a bank account waiting for her when they find her or if it’s already spent?
There is no way that this money is sitting in a bank account waiting for the daughter. The mom is using this money to fund her lifestyle. This is exactly what I would ask the judge. I would say if this money is for my daughter then it shouldn’t have been spent since she is missing. If it had been spent I would ask him to end the payments since it was being used for purposes other than my daughter. If it hadn’t been spent and was sitting in a bank account somewhere I would say that I will continue to pay but that bank account would need to be a joint bank account and both of us would have to be present to withdrawal money. But when the authorities declare he dead I get all the money back. And if I was the father I would give it 2 more years and then start seeing how you can get the child legally declared dead. I think this is a fair compromise.
Why does there need to be a compromise? If the mother is not supporting a child, why should the father pay any child support? If the child was still here, but custody was removed from the mother for some reason, the father wouldn’t still be required to pay the mother child support payments.
I should have made it clear that I don’t think he should be paying anything anymore. This child is more than likely dead and the mom is using the money to fund her lifestyle. I was just saying that IF the mom is saving the money that I would say fine I will continue to pay with these conditions.
women who can be extremely vulnerable during a divorce
What exactly makes a woman extremely vulnerable during divorce as compared to a man?
Would you say it’s more common in a marriage for the woman to be economically dependent on the man, or vice versa?
I would absolutely concede that it’s more likely for the wife to be economically dependent on the husband than vice versa. That doesn’t make her vulnerable during the divorce. It puts her in a position where she needs to figure out to gain economic independence. Welcome to single adulthood.
I’m not sure why men somehow are required to fund their ex-wives’ single life.
women who can be extremely vulnerable during a divorce
What exactly makes a woman extremely vulnerable during divorce as compared to a man?
I would absolutely concede that it’s more likely for the wife to be economically dependent on the husband than vice versa. That doesn’t make her vulnerable during the divorce. It puts her in a position where she needs to figure out to gain economic independence. Welcome to single adulthood.
I’m not sure why men somehow are required to fund their ex-wives’ single life.
It’s a lot more complicated than that, and you know it.