+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 173
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,222
    Thanks
    894
    Thanked
    3,218
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MrsBid View Post
    oh right people in this thread must be lying then
    Maybe they are.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,838
    Thanks
    6,199
    Thanked
    16,883
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by MrsBid View Post
    by the same reason that if he had more children to the first woman the kids would have to share and not receive as much. If she goes on to have more children and quits her job he has to pay more because she decided she wanted more children why should he and his new family have to pay for that? very rarely does it actually go DOWN when the child support payer has more children
    I don't think you are understanding my point. A father also 'chooses' to have more children to a new wife. Your argument lacks weight, if his first children can share financially, why can't the 'second' kids?

    I get this is close to home for you, but you are applying one rule to the mother but not the father
    - she should pay half when in fact she often pays way more, but the father isn't allowed to pay more than half
    - she isn't allowed to have another baby which financially burdens him that's her decision so she should pay, but if he has another baby that's more than fair his kids pick up the tab financially.

    I know several cases where the money HAS gone down, significantly after 3-4 kids. These guys now pay next to no CS (what happened to 50/50??) while their new family gets all his income, drives a new car and the mother struggles pretty much on her own. Then there's all the dodging of CS, hiding assets, demands over and over for re-assessments.... bc that new car is really biting him financially.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    meljemillie  (14-10-2014),Mokeybear  (13-10-2014)

  4. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    480
    Thanks
    308
    Thanked
    578
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    I don't think you are understanding my point. A father also 'chooses' to have more children to a new wife. Your argument lacks weight, if his first children can share financially, why can't the 'second' kids?

    I get this is close to home for you, but you are applying one rule to the mother but not the father
    - she should pay half when in fact she often pays way more, but the father isn't allowed to pay more than half
    - she isn't allowed to have another baby which financially burdens him that's her decision so she should pay, but if he has another baby that's more than fair his kids pick up the tab financially.

    I know several cases where the money HAS gone down, significantly after 3-4 kids. These guys now pay next to no CS (what happened to 50/50??) while their new family gets all his income, drives a new car and the mother struggles pretty much on her own. Then there's all the dodging of CS, hiding assets, demands over and over for re-assessments.... bc that new car is really biting him financially.
    I dont think you're understanding my point at all tbh. I am agreeing that people seem to want one rule for the mother and one rule for the father. But not in the way you are implying. It seems from many posts in this thread the opinions are that the first wife and kids should get more than the second family. Thats how it all strongly comes across to me.

    ETA and why should his money be effected by her new babies? they are not his.
    Last edited by MrsBid; 13-10-2014 at 22:35.

  5. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,838
    Thanks
    6,199
    Thanked
    16,883
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by MrsBid View Post
    I dont think you're understanding my point at all tbh. I am agreeing that people seem to want one rule for the mother and one rule for the father. But not in the way you are implying. It seems from many posts in this thread the opinions are that the first wife and kids should get more than the second family. Thats how it all strongly comes across to me.
    No. The same. Bc the new kids are no more or less important. You though are saying any new children the woman has should not fall onto the ex husband but it's ok when he has more kids bc the first kids should share.

    I think it kind of sucks both ways, and honestly, I do see the frustration that when his ex has another baby your payments go up. But with respect I think you are so blinkered with anger, you only see your side. Both sides get burdened when more children are born, not just the ex husband.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    Mokeybear  (13-10-2014)

  7. #125
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    68
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked
    21
    Reviews
    0
    I strongly agree that child support should be capped. The system is flawed in both directions. Good fun is when the payer overpays so is in credit but csa won't chase the payee to pay back that money.

  8. #126
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    480
    Thanks
    308
    Thanked
    578
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    No. The same. Bc the new kids are no more or less important. You though are saying any new children the woman has should not fall onto the ex husband but it's ok when he has more kids bc the first kids should share.

    I think it kind of sucks both ways, and honestly, I do see the frustration that when his ex has another baby your payments go up. But with respect I think you are so blinkered with anger, you only see your side. Both sides get burdened when more children are born, not just the ex husband.
    Im not blinkered by anything. I am IN both sides of this. I get no child support from my ex at all. Her new babies he should not have to pay for it is that simple they are her new mans burden

  9. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,581
    Thanks
    748
    Thanked
    733
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    CS is definetly reduced when/if the paying parent has a new biological/dependent child.
    Ill come back with the correct assessment amounts

    Sent from my SM-G900I using The Bub Hub mobile app

  10. #128
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE Melbourne
    Posts
    3,132
    Thanks
    1,097
    Thanked
    316
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    I think the $7 a week I would get from my ex doesn't even cover the cost of nappies. I'm annoyed that my ex has disappeared off the face of the earth with his new pregnant missus, but my son gets nothing.

    But I am so glad that we are rid of him.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to MonsterMummy For This Useful Post:

    Pusheen The Cat  (13-10-2014)

  12. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,838
    Thanks
    6,199
    Thanked
    16,883
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by MrsBid View Post
    Im not blinkered by anything. I am IN both sides of this. I get no child support from my ex at all. Her new babies he should not have to pay for it is that simple
    I'm trying hard not be be rude... but why then do you have two seperate rules? Rules in which the first family constantly pays and the 2nd families only benefit? Where it's ok for him to move on to the detriment of his other kids but she can't? If you saw both sides you would accept the facts that both sides pay financially when a new child is born, not just the new family.

    It's kind of a sucky system all around tbh and I don't have the answers. All I know is at least the system on this particular aspect is even - when a child is born it affects CS on both sides.

  13. #130
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    480
    Thanks
    308
    Thanked
    578
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    I'm trying hard not be be rude... but why then do you have two seperate rules? Rules in which the first family constantly pays and the 2nd families only benefit? Where it's ok for him to move on to the detriment of his other kids but she can't? If you saw both sides you would accept the facts that both sides pay financially when a new child is born, not just the new family.

    It's kind of a sucky system all around tbh and I don't have the answers. All I know is at least the system on this particular aspect is even - when a child is born it affects CS on both sides.

    how is it two sets of rules? the first wife and her new man pay for their kids. the first husband and his new woman pay for their kids. Neither one of the pair should be paying ANY money for the each others new children.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to MrsBid For This Useful Post:

    Ashram  (14-10-2014)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Child Support TO BE OR NOT TO BE?
    By darianiika in forum Pregnancy & Birth General Chat
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 09-04-2014, 06:17
  2. Please help re: child support
    By Mummabearto2 in forum Single Parents
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 24-11-2013, 18:00

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Shapland Swim Schools
Shapland's at participating schools offer free baby orientation classes once a month - no cost no catches. Your baby will be introduced to our "natural effects" orientation program develop by Shapland's over 3 generations, its gentle and enjoyable.
sales & new stuffsee all
The Health Hub
Give a new mum a fitness boost for Christmas & New Year. Studio-based, small group training sessions - cardio, strength, core, Pilates & boxing. Choice of 16 hrs per week, flexible-arrival feature - bubs & kids welcome! Gift vouchers available.
featured supporter
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!