Replies

I do agree that low income fathers are hit the hardest by the child support rules. I know men who pay almost as much for one child as my ex-husband pays for two (one of whom is disabled, but that is a non-issue for the courts), yet make HALF as much as my ex does.

My ex was able to take almost a year to pay back the month and a half he missed last year (where his income wasn't cut, but his source of income was different), yet I was not able to wait a year and a half to pay my mortgage, car payment, car insurance, utilities, gas for the car, food for the kids, etc. Plus, he didn't pay a cent of interest, which is what I would have had to pay had I the opportunity to spread my monthly expenses over the year.

I know someone whose ex voluntarily quit his high paying job (on purpose), is not working (because he is living with a very well off woman), and successfully was able to cut his child support in half just a few months ago due to his lower income.

I have found the people hit the most unfairly by our schedules are the women who work and have a decent income. (i.e. probably the women not getting any govt. benefits...hmmmmm..)

I wonder if WA state should also look into an adjustment for women who have a second family (or actually an addition to the first.) Wouldn't that be fair, too?

I have found the people hit the most unfairly by our schedules are the women who work and have a decent income. (i.e. probably the women not getting any govt. benefits...hmmmmm..)

I wonder if WA state should also look into an adjustment for women who have a second family (or actually an addition to the first.) Wouldn't that be fair, too?

Are you saying that the law is applied differently based on gender? Noncustodial mothers are ordered to pay more than noncustodial fathers?

Regarding your other issues: Yes -- financial stress can be hard. I hope you took it up with the bank when you couldn't pay your mortgage. Banks usually have terms for moving payments back a month. What I was saying is strange about cs, is that ... if an intact family experiences financial stress ... (assume non-welfare) ... the government doesn't have a guarantee against that sort of thing ... families have to compensate by cutting back on spending. If it's a long term problem, they may even have to sell the house and move into something cheaper. I know some women who think it's perfectly fair that divorce provides the guarantee, even if they don't always get the money on-time. I know of no logical, ethical, or moral basis for the government to force an abandoned parent into providing that kind of guarantee rather than rolling with the punches just like real people have to every day.