Replies

OK, let me get this straight: these two parents, after the divorce, were caring for the children on alternate weeks. That means that 50% of the time, the kids were living at Dad's house. Dad was also putting money into a college account for each kid monthly. Mom, who made as much as Dad, decides to quit, presumably to devote more time to the children that she ONLY CARED FOR 50% OF THE TIME. Then, inexplicably, the market downturn somehow affected her "savings" (I'm thinking if you lost money from a market downturn, your money wasn't in savings, but in stocks), so she then feels entitled to ask for $4000/month for caring for the kids 50% of the time. Oh, and let's not forget that these kids were school-age, so most of the day they're not even at home.

My guess is that this woman has decided she just didn't want to work anymore, and it was far easier to force her husband to pay her way than go back to work. She's taking him for a ride, and he knows it. He has shown quite clearly that he want to take care of his children, and does, but he obviously does not feel obligated to pay her personal expenses just because she decided not to work. Since child support was the only means she had of siphoning money out of him, then arguing against the child support is the only way he can stop her from stealing his money. However, knee-jerkers grab that concept and say "Hey, he's trying to get out of paying child support!" Bah. $4000/month is far more than is needed to take care of these kids 50% of the time. She'd be spending most of that money on her own personal items and expenses.

I think your post pretty much nailed it.

I blame divorce. Please see #55.

Thank you for being a boat of logic in this sea of insanity and corruption. In other words, good post.