When should child support end?

[guids]

Aye, I guess, your point number 1 is BS imo, if they use that as a reason, number 2, if there are no kids or family involved, there should be no reason for the non-medical school partner (as an example), should get anything out of it. If there was a divorce, they couldnt have been doing that good of a job in supporting the other (unless of course, someone cheated, etc)

[MasterLJ]

No it should not.

I am a father. I pay child support. My ex is happily married to a man who loves my son dearly. My son is not his responsibility, he is mine.

It should end when the child is 18.

[NicksDad1970]

Every divorce with kids I've heard of has what's called a MDA (marriage dissolution agreement). That's where all the future rules are established.

I bring this up for many reasons. one of which is the filing of taxes. I'm divorced and my ex and I had one son together. We agreed that we would take turns filing our son on our taxes each year.

I can only think of one reason why someone would stop paying child support. That is lets say the childs dad is a total loser. Basically abandons the child. If the childs mom goes to court to strip the dad of his parental rights. Then her new hubby tries to adopt the child.

I pay child support and I wouldn't want to stop it. I'd feel like I wasn't doing my duties. I'd also feel like I had less to do with him. My sons stepdad is a real cool guy. I like him a lot. But if I didn't have to pay child support i'd almost feel like he had more to say about my son than I did.

Also many times alimony is determined by the MDA as well. Sometimes it's a lump some payment and sometimes it's monthly. Sometimes it stops when the one receiving alimony remarries and sometimes it doesn't.

The MDA can involve some pretty odd stuff. In my MDA it states that I get to decide everything involving my sons education. Where my ex gets to decide anything involving religion. (although neither of us have ever had to pull that card out yet)

[Onaflag]

[ QUOTE ]
The only way the dad should be released of his liability is if the new dad actually adopts the kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that's how the law works. Whether right or wrong, the law has to be followed. If this is indeed how it works only a fool would adopt the children or maybe a person with more moral integrity than financial greed.

I'm not saying the bio parent should disappear from their lives upon remarriage, but the custodial parent has given the children a normal environment assuming dual incomes when he/she got remarried.

The assumption is the children need to be provided for. Aren't they now being provided for twice? Just seems unfair to me. (and I am totally willing to be wrong, this is just how I feel)

Onaflag.........

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
Aye, I guess, your point number 1 is BS imo, if they use that as a reason, number 2, if there are no kids or family involved, there should be no reason for the non-medical school partner (as an example), should get anything out of it. If there was a divorce, they couldnt have been doing that good of a job in supporting the other (unless of course, someone cheated, etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

well people choose to get divorced for emotional or personal reasons as well as fidelity type issues. just because people aren't emotionally compatible doesn't mean one didn't shell out 100k for the other to go to school.

[NicksDad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only way the dad should be released of his liability is if the new dad actually adopts the kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that's how the law works. Whether right or wrong, the law has to be followed. If this is indeed how it works only a fool would adopt the children or maybe a person with more moral integrity than financial greed.

I'm not saying the bio parent should disappear from their lives upon remarriage, but the custodial parent has given the children a normal environment assuming dual incomes when he/she got remarried.

The assumption is the children need to be provided for. Aren't they now being provided for twice? Just seems unfair to me. (and I am totally willing to be wrong, this is just how I feel)

Onaflag.........

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense I think you're totally wrong here.

[wiper]

[ QUOTE ]
No it should not.

I am a father. I pay child support. My ex is happily married to a man who loves my son dearly. My son is not his responsibility, he is mine.

It should end when the child is 18.

[/ QUOTE ]

good for you, man. very mature way to look at things...

[trapsetter]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont undertand the point of alimony. Assume kids arent part of the equation, why should one party recieve any of the other parties money? because its a partnership? well obviously the partnership probabyl was ineffective so how can you justify that it is the reason there was money made?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an Aunt in her late 60s in mediocre health (in other words, not really able to work), and her 72 year old husband just left her out of the blue for a woman 28 years his junior. Do you really think it's right that my Aunt, who has been nothing but a loving and faithful partner, should get completely screwed just because this douche bag is having a mid-life crisis at age 72?

He has every right to leave the marriage, but there's no way I agree with you that he shouldn't be obligated to take care of my aunt financially after 30-odd years of marriage.

[NicksDad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont undertand the point of alimony. Assume kids arent part of the equation, why should one party recieve any of the other parties money? because its a partnership? well obviously the partnership probabyl was ineffective so how can you justify that it is the reason there was money made?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an Aunt in her late 60s in mediocre health (in other words, not really able to work), and her 72 year old husband just left her out of the blue for a woman 28 years his junior. Do you really think it's right that my Aunt, who has been nothing but a loving and faithful partner, should get completely screwed just because this douche bag is having a mid-life crisis at age 72?

He has every right to leave the marriage, but there's no way I agree with you that he shouldn't be obligated to take care of my aunt financially after 30-odd years of marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed

FWIW many people only think women receive alimony. I've seen a few men receive it as well. Wouldn't that be nice?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

I have an Aunt in her late 60s in mediocre health (in other words, not really able to work), and her 72 year old husband just left her out of the blue for a woman 28 years his junior. Do you really think it's right that my Aunt, who has been nothing but a loving and faithful partner, should get completely screwed just because this douche bag is having a mid-life crisis at age 72?

He has every right to leave the marriage, but there's no way I agree with you that he shouldn't be obligated to take care of my aunt financially after 30-odd years of marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, it totally depends. If she was staying at home, running the house, and not working because that was what they had agreed upon, then yes. If she had a career of her own that she was pursuing the whole time, and hadn't really foregone much in the way of income, then I don't think there's a particularly compelling argument to be made for it.

I had this discussion with my girlfriend a few years ago and she pointed out NT's argument 2 to me, which seems like the only good reason for these payments.