Fugget about it!Follow

That's a nearly impossible standard to manage though. What area? The one she was living in prior to the divorce? The one the father is living in now? The one the mother and child are living in now? I'm just not getting why you seem to want to apply some additional and unnecessary "standard" to this.



Why not? The father was willing to pay for the daughters lessons when he was married to her mother, but not now that they're divorced? Why? What changed to make that happen? On what planet do you think that makes a lick of sense and is anything more than someone punishing the child for the actions of the other parent?

Sorry. I disagree with you there.



You're kidding, right? That's yet another impossible standard to manage. How the hell is anyone going to determine this?



And if that decision happens to coincide with a divorce settlement, I'd strongly suspect that you're doing it to be an *** and not out of some kind of altruism.



It does, however, make sense for the court to do what it can to prevent someone from using the divorce as an excuse to radically reduce the amount of money he provides for his children. I actually kinda agree with you to a point that the court shouldn't arbitrarily set some amount based on your earnings, but it should be based on what you were spending before. So if you were a super frugal person while married the court should not mandate that you pay child support to your former spouse in an amount sufficient to provide a higher level of living than they had while married. However, it should be able to mandate that you provide sufficient child support to maintain the same level of living.


It's just that the whole "Well, I could have decided to live like a bum while married, so I shouldn't have to provide more than a bums support for my children" bit smacks of selfishness when you didn't live that way when married and only now decide this is what you want to do now that you're faced with the potential of child support payments.

In Alma's world, when the father moves out, he stops loving his children and wanting them to have anything more than the basics. I think we've learned a lot here today, people.

No-one's surprised, Almalieque. We're just disappointed. You can do better than this.

...Can't you?

tl;dr: Alma wants every case where alimony needs to be paid to be looked at separately and in depth to get the fairest possible judgment with zero assumptions made and with the mom (or dad if the kid(s) live with him) would have to go to court over every little expense to prove what the kid does and doesn't need and whether the other parent needs to help pay for that.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or truly dense. In any case, see post 155. I said nothing to that liking.

Alimony isn't child support. Alimony is support for a non-wage earning spouse. They're two separate issues.

Alma are you a deadbeat Dad?!

1. Alimony isn't child support
2. The fact that you start off at a basic cost means that there wouldn't be a need to go over every detail, hence the basic cost. It has already been calculated.
3. That's exactly how everything else in life works. You're charged or given a certain amount of money based on some type of calculations. If for some reason you believe that you should pay less or be paid more, then it's up to you to argue otherwise.
4. Don't trip over the word "basic". I've stated that there should be other variables involved, but the point was to start at the average cost of living vs your salary. If you think your child deserves more/less money than the average child, then you should be able to argue your point.
5. This tactic actually would simplify things. Instead of starting off with your salary, which is inherently wrong, and having the parents argue over the costs, start off with something more accurate.



Holy crap... Do you people read anything? How is arguing to support your children any indication of being a deadbeat dad?

Ah, damnit. got the terms messed up in my head.

Yeah I think alimony is its own other can of worms, and you could definitely argue that the recipient of alimony should only get the minimum required to not starve - no "lifestyle to which he/she was accustomed" stuff involved.

Yeah, that'd be a compelling argument. "Hey, you take time off from your career to raise the kids and I'll focus on mine". "Hey it's been 12 years, I'm a CEO now, I'm going to go bang 22 year olds, why don't you run along and go back to an entry level job you haven't kept up with for over a decade and I'll make sure the kids have things."

Sounds perfect.

The civil and family courts in Cardiff run anywhere from about thirty minutes to an hour behind most of the day, though they always seem to make up the time before they break for lunch at one. My suggestion is that we make the non-starvation of both parties, as well as court staff, contingent on the rapid formulation of an absurdly complex arrangement, as advocated by Almalieque. This is sure to foster a clean break with the minimum of hurt feelings and ongoing conflict. Definitely.



I suppose you could argue that, just as you could argue anything. Are you just idly listing one of an uncountable plurality of hypothetical arguments or are we to infer that it's an argument that you would make? The precedent, in this country at the least, is generally headed the other way - apart from an increasing acceptance of prenuptial agreements, which is distinct but not unconnected from the division from assets gained during marriage.

Still, your arguable model would be pretty progressive among the Indian Muslim community. So that's something, I suppose.

Different states approach alimony differently, however all states will make allowances for it.

My dad, against the better judgement of his three lovely adult daughters, remarried shortly after my mom died. He came into the new marriage with my mom's pension, his pension, two homes and various other stuff. She had nothing but a part time job at the butcher shop and two dependent daughters. She must have been smarter than we gave her credit for though as after ten years of marriage she sought divorce - pretty much out of the blue (ten years is typically a legal division between a long term marriage and a short term marriage). Her daughters weren't at issue as they'd grown up and out in that ten years.

She got half of everything and he's into her for $800.00/month til he or she dies or she remarries. No one's gonna marry her.

Prenups should be mandated.

I'm not concerned with alimony because I just plan on burying her in the yard.

Not to return to the OP but it's increasingly looking like Christie is screwed.