Thanks for the reference. I read through it. It leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

"child support awards are equitable in nature"


Okay, let's run with this... I personally would be absolutely 100 percent happy to pay my fair share of child support having equal time with my child. But, "Equitable".... Since these support orders are equitable and calculated based on time and time is by "nature" in control of the mother.. they are not equitable. I basically have to pay more to have my child less. I'd even be happy to pay more to have my child more. How does that make sense? These are my problems. I hope that helps with the understanding. I did however like your reference "think "fair" Solomon splitting the baby stuff)".

Thanks again,

P.S. I've been working on my shot for 8 years.

Well, like the statute says, the guidelines are going to be applied unless there's a *REALLY* good reason why they shouldn't be. And by "REALLY," think 99% of the time. It's a tough sale for sure.

As to your second issue, child support isn't to compensate the CP for "winning." Theoretically, it's a means-based formula to compensate the CP for the actual costs of raising a kid. Think food, clothes, school expenses, etc. Let's say you have your kid 50% of the time. In such a case, you'd share expenses, right? About 50/50? You'd both have to have a home with an extra bedroom, you'd both have to buy clothes, pay for school stuff, football pads, musical instruments, cheer camp and whatnot. But let's say you are a lay minister at your church and she is a Wall Street investment banker. She should be paying you, right? Sure. The kid's going to be going to more expensive football camps or have more expensive ballet slippers, so you'll be on a more even playing field. That's where the shared parenting credit kicks in.

It's all very mathematical and mostly fair. Really, to find some of these truly unjust sorts of situations, you're either going to have to find some case law or just have a really different situation than anyone else (e.g., if you were a quadriplegic, you might not be ordered to pay child support when your ex is a software engineer working for a defense contractor).

In such a case, you'd share expenses, right? About 50/50? You'd both have to have a home with an extra bedroom, you'd both have to buy clothes, pay for school stuff, football pads, musical instruments, cheer camp and whatnot.

It's already that way..besides 50/50 cost which really overall doesn't matter that much to me. There are rooms at both homes, cloths, toys, etc... that don't ever find their way to my home and yet disappear on the other side. I already maintain two sets of everything. I have to provide for both homes basically. As far as she paying me... I don't want anything. I just want time... that's it. The root of the problem is time, not child support. If time were equal, child support would take care of itself. There is no opportunity. I don't even care to have shared parenting. I don't mind paying. By nature time is lob sided which is wrong and not remotely equitable.

If I came to you as a black man and said "I'm tried of sitting on the back of a bus and living a second rate citizen life".. you probably would have laughed at me 50 years ago. If I came to you as a female and said "I deserve to have a job equal to a mans. I also deserve to work the front lines of military a long side a man"... I would be oppressed. In my mind.. it's the same concept. Oppression... I'm tired of being put on the back of a bus because I'm not a female. I believe I play as big of a role in every aspect as of my child's life as a female provides. I'm a man with the resources to fight it, so I do. I believe it's in the best interest of society to realize fathers.

There are things a man provides physically, emotionally, and mentally that a mother can't provide and vice versa. The child deserves equal opportunity to both parents. Not a landslide control for one. Equality... that's what all people deserve.

Thanks!

I'm a stain on someones shirt. Basically, a nuisance that won't go away. And that's how they treat you.

I can't offer you competent advice particular to your situation because I don't know you, we don't have an attorney-client relationship, and I have no idea what her side of things might be. What I can tell you is that from experience, in cases where men feel like second-class citizens, it's either because they put themselves in that position by not being involved parents or they agreed to a final order which they later regretted. Generally, if you fight for what's yours, you get a fair shake in this system, and it's not biased against men. The problem is that not many people fight to the bitter end because let's be honest, we lawyers ain't cheap, the process is traumatic, stressful, etc., but I've for the most part been happy with the results I've fought for on behalf of my clients.

And of course, I don't know you, you may have really gotten a raw deal. Who knows? In most cases in my experience, folks don't get these one sided awful deals unless that's either what they deserved or what they agreed to.

I'm not complaining about any raw deal I've received from a judge. I think the judges have been fairly good to me considering the situation and what it is. I'm complaining about the default nature of the situation. This is my second go around. I actually have roughly 145 nights every year. It took two years to accomplish that piece. It's not 5 years later. I want half. Mom won't budge. When I went in initially for half time, judge said child was to young, but encouraged movement in half time. Problem is.. I have to go back to court for every inch. Delay after delay after delay after delay... The system stinks in that respect. Time is of the essence.. by default it's not on my side.

I hear ya there. In Oklahoma County, we have 5 judges to handle all of the child custody matters for several hundred thousand people. I believe the number of judges hearing these cases hasn't changed in decades even though the population has.

The delays account for a lot of the expense. Even when you get a trial, it's not uncommon to be 6th in line at the Pretrial stage.

Times are changing related to respecting the right of a father to be just as much a parent as a mother. It is taking a long time but I honestly see progress. And for what it is worth, as a guardian ad litem, I saw fantastic dads all the time. I went to bat for them in terms of custody as often as not. And as more judges see dads doing a good job, I think it will have a snowball effect on how these cases are handled. One thing I saw, sadly, was that a lot of women assumed they would get custody because they were the mother and, frankly, they acted like spoiled brats who could do whatever they wanted. Not all, not even close to most, but some. Some parents get so into it that they take their eyes off what is best for the kids. I would tell anyone who is considering having children with someone to pay attention to how vengeful and fair they tend to be. Breaking up with kids means you can't just walk away and you're looking at a couple of decades of hell, sometimes.

I wouldn't wish a child custody case, or for that matter, a child support case, on anyone. Hell on earth. For the kids, too.

Very well said Penny - totally agree with " Some parents get so into it that they take their eyes off what is best for the kids". Very unfortunate.....

Very well said Penny - totally agree with " Some parents get so into it that they take their eyes off what is best for the kids". Very unfortunate.....


This is true, but there is also a definition of what is best for the child? Should that be default in moms favor or dads? Or equitable until proven one way or the other? Should mom or dad have the right to define this? The system doesn't and won't know all of the caveats of the situation. If it started equitable.. you would have to prove one way or the other which would force mom or dad to go to court to prove "what's best" in order for modification... in most cases it would probably prove to much of a burden and save a lot of money better spent on the child. It's much easier to defend than it is to attack with no hard evidence of anything. In my mind it would lead to less litigation and more productive blended families.

I actually have joint custody. A very hard fought joint custody. I don't have a lot of room to complain. It's the situation. I suppose I feel a sadness for fathers that don't have the ability to fight mostly. The kids go through their life thinking dad abandoned them. In reality, dad had a mountain to climb without any arms. It's so important for them to be there. This isn't always the case as you mentioned above. But, again.. by default they are put in this position. I know some really good older men that have poor relationships with some of their adult children because of the "default" situation. The child's life could have been so much more fulfilling. I feel a pain for them. I want to make a difference. In my particular situation... I have every motivating factor in the world to make things work. When someone thinks they are more important and wants to fight you... they have every motivating factor to make things not work. Creating issues and such that shouldn't or don't exist. They control the situation. The biggest negative that I've seen with my child is self confidence... It's something that my bucket is full of and I don't get enough time to spill it in my child's bucket. There are so many things I personally have and want to give that are crippled by a scorned mother and a broken system. I was never married to my child's mother and there is an extreme amount of vengeful aggression that just plainly won't go away. Time apparently doesn't heal all wounds.

Thanks for all your replies.