I 100% believe that the bio parents should always come first. I say that simply because, if my DD's father were involved, and she had a stepmother, I as her mom were certainly want the first right of refusal to take her to the doctor, go to school conferences, etc.

I have never gone to my STBSS' school conference or anything of the sort--simply because mom and dad always go. The only way I would feel comfortable doing that is if BM were not in the picture.

I have taken him to the doctor only one time and that was because it was our day, and my fiance was at work. We couldn't reach BM so I went ahead and took him. Usually, though, if he needs to see a doctor while in our care, my fiance will take him.

BUT I completely agree, if a biological parent is absent, then the stepparent or nanny or grandparent--whoever is availabe and willing--should do it.

I agree child is not property. Dad can give car etc to SM, but (except in unusual situations) can not give or lend his parental rights.

I think the tension can start when SM is SAHM or works part time. I know others have said whether Xwife receives sufficient $$ from X as not to have to work is between the two of them, I dont agree. I dont buy the position that SM can be SAHM and then take over parental duties on the theory that she is the only one with time.

I agree that a working person should not be penalized because another person is 'stay at home'. However, in my case, I work (run my own business) so my time is flexible. My SD's mom does not work, she has more time than I do. She chooses to let me take SD to the Dr. because it means I have to pay for it. (this was before she moved away) When SD got sick on her time, she'd let her remain ill until it was dad's time and tell him she needs to go to the doctor. So, every situation is not like yours. I don't think it's fair to penalize a working mom if there is a SAHSM, but the working mom can also take time off from work if she wants to take her child to the doctor instead of SAHSM. Like I said, it should be the biological parent's choice, but a SM that steps up when a BM chooses not to, should not be criticized. They should be recognized or even commended for caring about the child. There are 'evil' and terrible step parents out there that don't deserve respect, recognition or anything, but when you have step parents that are loving and caring, that should be differentiated. Just as there are BM's in the world that abandon or neglect their children, there are wonderful BM's out there that would do anything for their kids.

There are good and bad parents. Step and Bio. The common goal should be to have someone good in every child's life, whether it's a bio or step parent... or an aunt, grandparent, family friend... anyone that will love the child.

"Just as there are BM's in the world that abandon or neglect their children, there are wonderful BM's out there that would do anything for their kids.

There are good and bad parents. Step and Bio"

Imamommy, I wholeheartedly agree.

This all goes back to my age-old question of: Why would a BP not want the child(ren) to have as many people in their life that love and care for them? I don't always get along with BD's GF, but I know she loves my DS. I just registered him in a new school district and she's the 3rd emergency contact. I know that, if in a bind, she would leave work and pick up DS and get him the proper care he needs in an emergency. I asked BD who else he wanted on the emeregency contact list and he suggested my FDH. Mainly because we live in the same house and FDH can get get DS home in an emergency. We don't always get along or even agree, but we all know that the 4 of us love DS and would drop everything to get to him if need be.

I think that people need to move past their petty control issues and figure out what's best for the kid(s). My FSD's BM pretty much takes KKNY's stance on SPs. She would rather me not be involved at all so she can run all over FDH. Funny thing is that her problems seem to only apply to FDH and I and never FSDs SF. Funny, huh? She lets SF have carte blanche control over FSD, but I can't even take her to the movies without BM sabotaging it.

Ima, like I said, I doubt I will ever trust the woman who had an affair with my X. And I think that most people who work, either for themselves or for an organization, pay some price when they take time off. If Dad is willing to subsidize that cost for SM, he should do the same for X.

"If Dad is willing to subsidize that cost for SM, he should do the same for X."

That's so funny, kkny. In my case, DH subsidized cost for both bio-mom and me to be SAHMs. The only difference was that I actually was around for the kids. She was going out of town, planning her upcoming wedding, just never home in general.

kkny, I work for myself and yes, I have lost money/income by turning down work to go pick up SD from her mom (for DH while he's at work), I rearrange my schedule during the week when she's in school so I can be home when she gets off the bus, and if she gets sick at school and I have to stop working to go get her and spend the rest of the day at home, taking care of her and when her mom decides she can't pick her up for her weekend and expects me to get her and wait until she can make it, I do. So, sure I lose money when those things happen. How is my husband supposed to subsidize that? His income and my income contribute to our living expenses. If I lose income from doing those things, he is also losing money because it's OUR money. Our 'household' income is less. Why would he subsidize his ex when she chooses to stay at home and not work? Is he expected to pay her to come take her daughter to the doctor?

In your case, I don't blame you for not wanting his SO to do anything for your daughter, especially if she says negative things about you. However, I disagree that your ex should subsidize you taking time off from work. That comes across as vindictive, just to penalize him for cheating. If his SO was out of the picture and you had to take time off from work to take your daughter to the doctor, I assume you would. If you were still married to him and took time off, your 'household' income would go down. He wouldn't bring home more money to make up for any you lose. That's why the courts base child support on the amount of time the child is with you, because they take into consideration that the more the child is with you, the more time you might miss from work, etc. If you chose to not get child support so he will have to pay other expenses when she's in college, that was your choice. Personally, I think you should have gotten the child support AND his agreement to pay for college.

If it makes you feel any better, she's with a guy that is going to cheat on her, he already has apparently. If he is with her for her looks, he will get bored and want more. He'll toss her aside for something fresher or she'll tolerate his cheating to be 'kept'. He stayed with you for 25 years because of more than your looks. You should be proud of that. You are more than eye candy. You still have your dignity and integrity. It's HIS midlife crisis and he is going to do what he's going to do. It's actually quite sad for him. She is relying on what she can get with her good looks now, but as we all know, that doesn't last forever. When her looks fade and she's tossed aside, that's when she'll pay for her part in what they've done. He'll pay for it by spending his old age living in regret. Perhaps he will regret breaking up his family and he will be alone and lonely, destined to a string of meaningless relationships with girls designed to make himself feel 'young' again. Hopefully, you will be able to let go of the pain he's caused you and live a happier life because the best revenge is living well and being happy.

"My SD lives with us full time and my husband works and he chooses to not take time off from work."

I think he SHOULD take time off from work to take his child to the doctor. Presumably if ima insisted that her husband take his daughter to the doctor, he wouldn't refuse. When my oldest kids were young and I was working, I took time off to take them to the doctor, and I take time off from work now to take my younger ones. Sometimes both my H and I took time off to do that, and we virtually always both took time off to go to all school conferences and such. Actually we still both take time off to go to team meetings.

Taking time off to take your child to the doctor is part of being a parent. Sure it costs you income, or sick or vacation time, but so what? There are a lot of costs, both financial and time, involved in raising child, and it is to be expected.

"I think he SHOULD take time off from work to take his child to the doctor."

I don't agree.

I think that, if possible, the bio-parent should take time off and do it. But, let's face it, that is not always possible. If the parents were still married, and both working, presumably whichever parent was *more able* would take time off to take the child to the doctor.

People have meetings scheduled, clients coming in, and any number of other things that cannot always be avoided.

Let's say there was a situation where the parents are married, and neither mom nor dad can possibly leave work to pick Sick Susie up from school and take her to the doctor. So they call Grandma and she does it, willingly and happily.

Everyone would be happy--and I don't think anyone on this board would find anything wrong with that, right?

So why should it be different if Dad cannot leave work--BM cannot leave work, or doesn't want to, whatever----and SM takes the child to the doctor?

The answer is--it shouldn't be different.

"I think he SHOULD take time off from work to take his child to the doctor"

You are certainly entitled to YOUR opinion. I don't necessarily care what you think. I think her mother SHOULD come take her, she doesn't work. Then nobody has to lose income. But, her mother chooses not to. Since her mother has no interest in doing it, then it becomes a decision for my husband to make, and if he chooses to have me do it so our household income is less impacted, that's HIS choice.

"Presumably if ima insisted that her husband take his daughter to the doctor, he wouldn't refuse."

Of course he wouldn't refuse, it's his daughter. It's unfortunate that her mother doesn't feel the same way. He does take time off for conferences or counseling meetings where his input is needed. [her mother, on the other hand, has missed all school conferences and sends her mom to pick her up for her weekends, then drops her off at her BF's parents house so she can go out on the weekends. And she has refused to take her own daughter to the doctor]

"Taking time off to take your child to the doctor is part of being a parent. Sure it costs you income, or sick or vacation time, but so what? There are a lot of costs, both financial and time, involved in raising child, and it is to be expected."

I completely agree. I think her mother should come take her to the doctor, attend her school functions and conferences and be more involved in her life. If she were working, I might understand when she doesn't. But, then again, she is too busy coaching her BF's kids' baseball team.

I think this is a stupid subject. Everybody always argues that things should be done in a way to serve the child's best interest. It stands to reason if there is a parent, step or bio, who works part time, has PTO, or a flexible work schedule and can take a child to meetings, Dr. Appt.s , practices, etc., then let that parent do it so the other can work!

If a parent is forced to miss work and miss out on that day's pay it will affect the income thus affecting household cost in turn affecting the household memners....children included. If the step parent happens to be available what's the big deal?

If the other bio parent gets their underwear in a wad over it....let he/she miss work to haul Jr. around. I bet it won't be such a big issue if it starts cutting in to the complaining parties work time. Honestly, some of these topics seem trivial and petty. Control issues much? God forbid a step parent care enough to want to do things for the child.

"If the other bio parent gets their underwear in a wad over it....let he/she miss work to haul Jr. around."

That's exactly how I feel. BM used to insist that DH take time off from work when I was available and he told her that she can come take her. All of a sudden, it was okay for me to do it. She didn't mind as long as she didn't have to take her time or pay for any of it. And she doesn't even work! It was all about 'CONTROL'. You hit the nail on the head.

Ima, as to money, it wasnt clear under our state law I would get CS because of my income. But in any event, the agreement called for college, grad school, cars, medical insuarnce, yadaydada.

But back to SM taking child to doctor, etc. I dont agree. SM isnt a parent. One of the parents should be the one having discussions with doctors, etc.

"One of the parents should be the one having discussions with doctors, etc."

I agree, but that can't always happen. In a perfect world, yes.

I would not let someone other than myself, my adult children, or my children's father take my child to a doctor, unless it were an emergency - in which case it would probably be EMT's taking the child.

You can ALWAYS leave work. Very few people have jobs where they are so indispensable that someone is going to die if they leave to take their child to the doctor. Only if you are traveling so far away that it would take longer than was safe to return to take your child to the doctor do you need to find someone to take them to the doctor - and in my opinion, that someone should be an immediate family member. If you don't have any immediate family, you shouldn't travel.

"If you don't have any immediate family, you shouldn't travel."

OMG. What a ridiculous statement.

There is a family in my DD's class at school with 3 kids. I am pretty good friends with the mom and know that they have NO immediate family in town.

Parents go on vacation once or twice a year without the kids and leave the children with a trusted babysitter.

I don't see ANYTHING wrong with that.

This is just a totally stupid argument, anyway. Imamommy is right, in a perfect world, only moms and dads would talk to doctors, teachers, etc. But let's face it, the very fact that there are steps in the picture means--it's NOT a perfect world, not all marriages/relationships last and sometimes that means there are other people involved in the day-to-day care of the children.

I agree that most people *can* leave work in an emergency--but I don't think taking a child to the doctor with an ear infection necessarily qualifies as an emergency. It depends on a lot of things, and some parents might prefer to save the leaving early/days off for times when they REALLY, TRULY are in a bind and need them.

In other words--yeah, maybe BD can leave work to take his DD to the doctor, but he might end up pissing his client off for cancelling the meeting and losing that account--and then losing money. Is that worth it for an ear infection if SM was available to take the child to the doctor? My opinion--no.

If a child is really, really sick, if it's a true emergency, or something, then yes, bio parent probably should (and most likely would!) take the child to the doctor.

But let's face it, kids get sick, and go to the doctor and it's not the end of the world!

I stay at home and do not hold an outside job, by choice of both my husband and myself. We feel both of our lives, plus the lives of all our kids are happier, healthier and less stressful by having me home. In previous summers, I watched my skids while my husband went to work. It was my pleasure, and a great privilege to be able to do so. I have taken skids to appointments, but never made medical decisions on their behalf. If its anything more serious than a dental filling, one of the parents take the children.

This year, for various reasons, including the insane cost of gas, my husband asked his boss if he minded if he telecommutes at least part of the week. His boss is in favour, so my husband has been able to spend the entire summer at home, going to the office only once every few weeks for an hour or two. He has had firsthand the joys of tending to his own children this summer. He is a better man for it, the kids love it, and they are both building memories and relationship that will last a lifetime. I would urge dads to be involved as much as possible every chance they get. Kids dont stay kids forever.

"I would not let someone other than myself, my adult children, or my children's father take my child to a doctor, unless it were an emergency - in which case it would probably be EMT's taking the child."

Me too!! I ALWAYS took my kids myself. I don't understand a mother that would not prefer to. That's probably why I don't understand why a mother would leave her kids. In an emergency, I'd be thankful to ANYONE that got help for one of my kids. I can't imagine complaining about someone doing something nice for one of my kids.

In my situation if hubby takes time off of work he does not get paid for it and because his was/is basically the only income in the home no work no money we are not all on salaried positions with padded bank accounts.

When I was taking the kids to appts. it was because dad had to work and mom refused... mom is not working now she can take her children and she does ... SD for example has been to 6 different counselors in 8 months. Mom pays all the co-pays as part of her strategy to tell the courts "look I pay all the co-pays and he pays nothing" but per her request he only has to pay what he is billed for so if she never sends him a bill for co-pays he is not obligated to pay 50% of them :) ... she refused to pay her 50% when he was paying 100% so now unless other parent is invoiced there is no recouping 50% of co-pays.

When I was taking them to drs appts it was regular check-ups, dental cleanings, allergist appts... I was not taking them for lobotomies. I was not authorizing surgery... even with my own kids I would not consent to anything without speaking to their father about their care. If my SC needed something that was on the parents to decide ... like getting one of them a flu shot dad said yes mom said no I told the dr the parents cannot agree so it will have to wait .... a week later hubby took the child and had him get a flu shot without mom's approval thats not on me thats on him.

Again another child dr suggested he get tested for allergies mom refused dad agreed ... 2 weeks later mom took the child and agreed to the testing.

As long as one parent is willing and able to take a child to the drs thats great but if the only person available is the stepparent or nanny or grandparent then thats what is best for the child.... if mom's toes get bruised from my overstepping well then she should step up and do what needs to be done so that doesn't happen.

And I don't want to hear about TOS kids SM taking her kids ... the father wouldn't piss on his kids if they were on fire so debating" if my ex's wife blah blah blah" is moot.

KKNY why can't your ex take your child to the drs??? according to tos he should take time off no matter what and be available to his daughter same as her ex "does".

I am not knocking you for having someone else take your child to the drs ... but stop knocking SP's who are doing the same thing as your au pair with regards to drs. appts.

Pseudo, what I was trying to say is that where SM can more easily take the Stepchildren because she has a lesser work schedule, Dad should be providing financial assistance such that mom can work part time, or be SAHM also.

Mom was the bread winner up until the divorce. Hubby was a SAHD mom earned more than $100,000 a year ... and now she's unemployed to get out of paying CS. Hoping to gain custody of her daughter so she can get CS from hubby.

Mom left dad with 3 kids I quit my job (after we married) because daycare for 3 children was about $400 a week...so after paying daycare and gas for me to get back and forth to work plus medical insurance what was left of my paycheck was about $100 so basically me staying home with his children which benefitted both parents. We lost $100 a week. Rather than paying out $600 a week. If I wasn't here hubby wouldn't not have been able to take the job he has now he would be on welfare supporting his children because alone he could not afford daycare for 3 children with out any support from their mother. Who up until January of 07' never paid a dime owed almost $10,000 in back support when she started paying.

In your arguement hubby should have been able to remain a SAHD and his ex-wife should have supported him while he continued to be available for his children.

"Dad should be providing financial assistance such that mom can work part time, or be SAHM also."

I don't agree. A father's obligation is to help support his child--note that I said HELP, not entirely provide. Children are entitled to support from both parents, not just one. If dad is paying a FAIR amount of child support, determined by the court, then that is what is should be--if BM can make do on that and work less hours, or not at all, then great. If not, then she needs to have a job. If dad has extra money AFTER paying his child support, then that is his business what he does with it. JMO.

Now--I am referring more to women who were not married to the fathers of their kids. If a woman gets divorced, then most likely, the courts will grant her alimony in addition to child support. In my opinion, it is the ALIMONY that should enable her to perhaps stay home, or work less--NOT the child support.

My parents divorced when I was 17, after 24 years of marriage, and my mom got a lump sum and alimony for 7 years. No child support because my brother and I resided primarily with my dad. (I have an excellent relationship with my mom, now, and my dad, as well.)

If the parents were never married, then the father is not obligated to support the mother, he is obligated to support his child.

Hang on, am I misreading that or am I more tired than I thought? Dad should be financially supporting Mom so she can either work part time or be a SAHM? Why? So that SM can go to work full-time to support the ex wife sitting at home, and therefore not be able to take the child to the doctor? You have issues.

This is hilarious - comparing stepmothers to au pairs? I can only laugh :D Let go of that bitterness and spite, ladies, it causes wrinkles. Really bad ones ;)

What KKNY is implying ... is if dad can afford the new wife to be a SAHSM he should also support his ex-wife so she can be a SAHM also. If he can only afford one wife to be home with the children it should be the ex-wife after all she is their mother ... even though the children may live with dad he should support mom so she can be home with out children.

I know foolish huh!!

A child is not property period. I agree with ima but as well i personal dont care if you are a stay at home mom dad or whatever. If a child needs med attention and bioparents choose not to take responsibility then its a human responsibility to do the right thing for another living human being. Period. That is not overstepping boundaries whatsoever.
I am so tired of hearing overstepping boundaries.
I was raised by many family members and friends and thank GOD for that. Its called SHARING. Sharing love , sharing responsiblity, sharing ......
As for finances. A person is capable of working unless medically incapable. God gave you hands use them! I do not believe a man should provide financial support if mom can work. Especially in cases and this applies to men as well where they CHOOSE not to work to force the other parent to pay. Bunch of BS. Manipulative people out there.
And if other parent complains, whether it be mom or dad about time and work , then share the kids 50 , 50 and be done with it.
Granted there are cases where jobs, location and time its difficult and if a stepparent can make it easy for the kids, why not?! oh, but excuse me, i'm sorry, we stepparents overstep our boundaries when we help.
You know who knows the truth in the end....its the kids...lol...in then end, the kids will know who was there for them. Not about money, or the lies cause you know..they see through the bickering and lies..they know.
So bioparents can squabble all they want. Biomoms can blame the stepmom all the time. But in the end, your child will bite you in the butt in the years to come! Mark my words. I know. I was a stepchild. And i see it now in my stepkids. Even if i have stife with my SD. Its no comparison to the anger building for both her parents now.

You know, this entire thread was summed up in LH's first reply to it: "first right of refusal"

BPs get first "dibs" on doctor's appointment and so on. However, if they cannot or will not, then someone else has to do it. So that can be a SP or a GP or an aunt/uncle or an au pair, provided the parents are fine with that.
First right of refusal should go to the BP, but if they can't or won't, they shouldn't be able to say "but that person isn't allowed to either" because if they're so concerned about it, they should do it themselves.

My DH worked nights when my kids were small, so he was home with them during the day. He was the one to pick them up from school, stay home with them when they were sick, take them to the doctor, etc. It just made sense. It would have been over 120 mile round trip, I would have lost time at work, and at the time we were going to college and earning less than poverty level. I wasn't getting child support for over 3 years for the three kids at home and no help for the oldest in college.

"If a woman gets divorced, then most likely, the courts will grant her alimony in addition to child support."

Not in my state. It is VERY rare for alimony to be granted. After two decades of marriage, my exH did not have to pay a penny of alimony, even though I was a SAHM with six kids, including a toddler with developmental delays. Nor did I get any kind of "lump sum." My lawyer said that except in cases where the NCP was very wealthy, alimony is hardly every awarded when there is child support, and that NCP's are almost never required to pay more than something like forty percent of their income in child support, even if they have a dozen children.

I don't know then.

My parents were very wealthy, so perhaps that is why my mother received alimony. I always attended private schools and many of my friends' mothers received alimony..but perhaps that was more of a socio-economic thing? I don't know.

I certainly believe a woman should get it, particularly if she has forgone her own education/career to raise the children while her husband works. I have a friend who supported her DH through med school, and never went to college herself. When he filed for divorce 7 years and two kids into their marriage, she was up a creek--she had a HS education and he was a doctor! She did get alimony, though.

Well, whether the wife gets alimony or not, I think the point is that the child support is to support the child, not the CP. If you are not fortunate enough to get Alimony, Spousal Support or Maintenance (or whatever other name is given to it), then unfortunately, you have to go to work to support yourself. A parent should not be living off money intended to support the child. That only diminishes the child's standard of living, unless the parent is disabled. (and even in that case, they should be able to get some sort of disability based income to contribute so it's not the parent living off the kids' money)

There were illegal immigrants that came into the US with a couple of non citizen children. They would have one or two citizen children to get welfare benefits. Then they would try to support the whole family on that. There is no way and it's the children that suffer, growing up in poverty because the parents choose not to work. It's not much different when one parent chooses to stay home with no other income besides child support that is intended to be the NCP's half of the support and instead of the CP contributing the other half, they try to stretch it so they can live off it. That's unfair to the children.

and if you were a SAHM during the marriage, well it's now irrelevant once you divorce. If you had remained married and your spouse died, chances are (unless he has tremendous life insurance or other assets that will allow you to not work ever again) you would have to go get a job. If he became disabled, you would have to go get a job. Is it fair? No. But, life ain't fair.

If you can get alimony.... get it. I'm all for getting as much as you deserve and/or can get. But, once it's settled and the parties go their separate ways, it does no good to gripe that it wasn't enough. Put a period and move on. It's one thing to feel you got the short end and be angry if you don't get what you deserve, it's another to complain about it ten years later. Life's too short.. be happy!!!

Yes, we had enough insurance that I could have stayed home with the children, at least for a few more years. That's one of the things life insurance is for. That is one of the things alimony is supposed to be for, too.

So I am not supposed to complain about something ten years later? Yet you can complain about things your mother did well over twenty years ago. Why is that?

I'm not complaining about things my mother did 20 years ago. I've said what she did 20+ years ago in explaining the background. I complain that she has never gotten over the fact that my dad married someone else and moved on. He's been married to my step mom for 21 years. My mom continues to call me and ask if I think my dad will take her back. She continues to make nasty comments about my stepmother and disregard the fact that I care for my stepmother. She's asked me why don't I 'finish her off' because she thinks my dad might take her back if my stepmom is out of the picture. Those are current events, not 20+ years ago. I've accepted that she is who she is and she isn't going to change. So, you can complain about it all you want... I really don't care one way or another. As I said, life's short. I choose to be happy. You can choose your own path. But, it won't change anything...

Ima, alimony should not be adjusted, CS should be. CS is to keep the childs standard of living the same. And if only SM can be SAHM and then picks up child etc., thats not right. I disagree with the people who say that DAD and X should jointly decide if X should work.

I don't think it's a choice that should be made jointly. Children are entitled to be supported by both parents. If the ex is entitled to support (spousal, not child) then she should get it. If the terms of support are not indefinite, then it will eventually end. Some orders will continue forever until she dies or remarries. Whatever. But, if you rely on child support to live off, then 1) your child is suffering because child support is calculated with the assumption that both parents are going to contribute something. 2) Child support eventually ends when the child is emancipated.. apparently it's different in various states, but it DOES end (unless the child is incapacitated and it's ordered beyond the age of majority) When it ends, unless you have spousal support or some other source of income, you are pretty much stuck with no way to provide for yourself. It would suck to be in your 40's and looking for your first job. (My SD's mom is 35 now. Her older daughter will be 18 in 5 years and the child support she gets will end. Then what? She's never worked more than two months at a minimum wage job in her life.)

Child support should not be adjusted so the CP can stay home. If she gets enough alimony to stay home, that's fine I guess. I still think she should work, even part time to contribute to the support of the child, especially if the child is in school. Younger kids that require daycare, it might be a wash and then it's better to have mom at home. when you have a child, you are supposed to contribute to the support of your child. If dad's GF sits around, she's only getting older and less employable. If she had a kid (by him or anyone else), I'd say she has no right to sit around doing nothing, she needs to contribute to her child's expenses just as much as the father. But, as long as dad is paying his obligations to you, what he chooses to do (by letting GF do nothing) is his business. I think he's a fool for supporting a bimbo and I think she's a fool for not doing anything with her life, but it's their choice, not anyone else's.

So why should children benefit from SP's money??????

Ima has more "free" income than her hubby so in your thinking she doesn't have to spend a dime on her. Mom pays what $216 a month so her SD is only entitled to $432 a month of expenses???

JNM I believe makes considerable more than her hubby ... so SD should not benefit from that??

Mom2 is a teacher who has summers off and vacations to be with her 3 SC hubby should put them in daycare because he has to work ... while mom doesn't even bother to send her kids an email.

Ashley doesn't get enough help for her son but was told too bad get a better job support your kid while dad skirts his responsibilities.

You can't have it all ways....

TOS ... FYI ... hubby's lawyer asked him if he wanted alimony ... but he told her NO. Also asked if he wanted CS for oldest daughter because "she had assumed a parental role in her life for 10 years".

You needed a better lawyer!!!

Pseudo, I think TOS has explained why she recieves minimal CS (combinatin of many children, X not working). No need to put her down for beign in a tough situation.

Yes, I needed a better lawyer. The one I had came well-recommended, but obviously that wasn't sufficient. I talked to some who were worse - one lawyer promised me that she could get an amount of child support awarded that exceeded my husband's full-time income (this was before he became unemployed). Needless to say I didn't believe that.

Unfortunately, when the NCP decides not to work but makes a pretense of looking for a job, one's options are limited. That, combined with his being able to afford a more well-known lawyer meant that I was at a distinct disadvantage, complicated by the fact that the child support regulations don't take into account the fact that not everyone has only a couple of children.

I could have found another lawyer and kept fighting, but it wouldn't have been worth it financially. He was more than willing to throw money away on his lawyer over small amounts of money - even his lawyer told me that she thought that he was being ridiculous.

"Mom pays what $216 a month"

HA! I wish!!! She OWES $216 a month. We've seen squat!!

"No need to put her down for beign in a tough situation."

People in glass houses shouldn't toss stones!

and theotherside, he sounds like a gem!!!