LOLOLOL. What was his reply to that? (BTW, I am in sympathy with men who are forced to pay child support, including arbitrary increases, but for whom the courts don’t make such a great distinction in enforcing their visistation rights. Men get a raw deal in this country when it comes to the divorce, the courts, and their children. I just learned about the Sullivan vs Sullivan case, and thought it was one of the most ridiculous efforts I’ve ever heard of to practically enslave a man in this day and age. I know what my husband went through with the courts vis a vis his ex-wife, and she wasn’t even the one being vindictive or instigating the trouble. He and she had a sensible arrangement-Sixties Mississippi-where he paid her, her bills, whatever his sons needed, a car, the whole works, and of course she was happy with that arrangement. The courts of their own volition tried to get involved so they could get “their” cut, which would have left her receiving less than she was getting in the straightforward “gentleman’s agreement” between the two of them. Somehow they managed to sidestep the courts.)
Back then the courts gave a lot more leeway to the custodial parent. If the two were able to work something out they both could agree to, then the court was cool with it and left them alone. Now, the court assumes the custodial parent, if it’s the female half, is too stupid and helpless to effectively argue their case, so the court inserts its own opinion of what is “good.” Wage garnishment is Standard Procedure, too. Those of us who have had to deal with Family Court and its intrusion into the art of the deal already know what it’s like to have health insurance handled the same way.
I’m not surprised at all the people who got their insurance cancelled because “it wasn’t good enough.” Child support is the template.