I agree, imamommy. I have no problem with HELPING my stepkids with their educations, but I certainly do expect that they also contribute. I would absolutely support any educational choice that they made, though.

As far as a "moral" obligation,....no.

Like I said by education or training or acquiring any kind of skills I don't necesarilly mean 4-year college. Not everyone can go to college. I still believe though that it is parental moral obligation to do everything possible so children do receieve adequate education. I believe in planned parenthood, before you have children you think of your priorities and what you want to give to your children. It is my perspective, I understand it differs from yours.

The fact that your nephew is a party boy has nothing to do with parental responsibilities. Of course some children grow up troublesome no matter how hard parents try. There is no guarantee, but it does not mean that parents shouldn't be trying.

I was talking about paying for education, not paying for partying. When children start partying and skip school, then you don't have to be paying for it, but have to help them get on track. It is commom sense.

I do agree that I see your example is possitive for you in terms of you making your own life, but I see it as a negative example for your children. You cannot change that, but you can try so they do not repeat the same story you had. You said your 20-year-old was on his own not in school and not working. How is it positive? I understand that we have different views.

A lot of people end up in careers unrelated to their college majors, but that certainly doesn't mean that college was a waste of time. Not only is a college degree in something essential to getting your foot in the door in many fields, but, probably more importantly, there are myriad benefits to a college education in terms of development of critical thinking, research, writing, and speaking skills, and exposure to different cultures and experiences.

I absolutely do feel morally obligated to make sure my children can attend not only college, but a college that is a good match for them.

I agree. My X and I have moral obligations to do as best as we can to provide DD with education, of course within what we can afford and what she can do. Nobody should go hungry so kids get educated, it makes no sense. And of course she is expected to do her best in school and contribute her part.

All this yammering about intact vs divorced...
My family is not "intact" but nor did my parents divorce and sometimes I get annoyed that many people here seem to consider family status as a binary. There are about a million shades of grey in family status.

I'm curious where any of you who insist that parents should pay for children's educations feel about my situation:

My mom had cancer. She had to quit working when I was 13 and we relied solely on my dad's income after that. He drives truck, so makes OK money but is far from wealthy. The loss of Mom's income hit hard enough that they had to use most of their savings. I got a job when I was 14 because of my parents' situation. AFAIK, they wound up refinancing the house to allow Dad to take time off work to spend time with Mom before she died when I was 16, pay for her funeral, and allow some time off before he went back in the truck.
As a result of my mom's illness, my family lost most of its assets and there's no way my dad could have paid for my university. I worked about 16 hours a week through grades 10, 11 and 12, but couldn't save much of it because I was paying for everything I needed myself (shoes, clothes, shampoo, tampons, school fees, gas, you name it)

Do those of you who think parents should pay for postsec think my dad did me a disservice my spending their savings on time with my mom and our family before she died? Do you consider my dad a failure at his moral obligations to me?

ceph, nobody said parents "should" pay no matter what. If they cannot pay, then they cannot.

What we are saying that if people have kids, they have obligations to do "the best they can" so their children can succed. The best can mean paying all or some, helping with loans, helping to look for scholarships, giving supporting ideas how to get money for college...And if college is not possible, then looking for some training or some other opportunities. Obligation is to "do your best". What I and some other people here disagree with is the attitude: if they want to get education they will on their own or because my parents did not help me, i am not going to help my kids, or I turned out OK, they will too etc.

fine, that may be your interpretation of what I meant but that wasn't my point.

I don't think it's right for one parent (of a grown child) to expect the other parent to pay for their child's college education. If mom wants her DD to go to college and dad doesn't want to pay for it, then mom should pay for it. It might be true that dad is a jerk for not wanting to help but that's between dad and his DD. After divorce, Mom doesn't have the right to tell dad what his "moral" obligation is, just because SHE feels a moral obligation to help DD. If there is a legal obligation, then yes, mom should make dad pay his legal obligation.

It's not much different than a father's moral obligation to pay for his daughters wedding. If he chooses not to, that's between him & her and he will have to deal with it, not anyone else. There's no legal obligation to pay for a child's wedding.

Contrary to the actions of many men after divorce, your moral obligations to your children do not change just because you are no longer married to their mother. If the parents had agreed that they would pay for some or all of their children's tuition while they were married, that obligation doesn't end just because they divorce. And if you don't feel a moral obligation to do what you can to help your children get a college education, you should mention that long before you are in a serious relationship, around the same time that you would mention that you never wanted to have kids if that were the case.

Well, I totally agree with you. If the parents agree during the marriage that is one thing. and that may create a "legal" obligation (verbal contract) that can be enforced. In my state, it can even be put into the M.S.A., but not required. However, if they never discussed it and just assumed (by one) that they would pay for college and then later, after they are divorced, one expects the other to pay because that was what they "thought" should happen, then that's different.

Everyone has expectations during a marriage, (ie. staying together, being faithful, supporting each other, providing for each other and the kids, etc.) and when there is a divorce, those circumstances change.

A divorced father (or mother for that matter) that may now feel like he's been treated like nothing more than a bank account by his ex wife may be less willing to pay for his child's college when it's the ex wife badgering him to do so. If the children's relationship with him changes (especially if the children take sides and side with his ex), of course it's going to affect whether he wants to shell out tons of money for college. I don't agree that it should happen but it does and I can understand how he would feel. Every situation is different and it's really unfair to make a blanket statement that all parents are morally obligated to pay for college if they can afford to.

If you say that they do have a moral obligation, then doesn't the ex wife have a moral obligation to only say nice things about their father to the children? Doesn't she have a moral obligation to ensure that their feelings toward him are not tainted by her anger, hurt and frustration over being left? Does she have a moral obligation to never criticize him or his new GF/spouse? Of course, and if she does any of those things anyways, and the children resent their father, then it's still expected for him to have to fork over college money for kids that resent or hate him? I don't think so. I don't expect you to agree with me and you are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine.

When my H left, we already had one child in college, the tuition for whom he and I were paying, apparently willingly. Should I not have assumed that he would be willing to send ALL of our children to college?

No, of course the mother does not have any moral obligation to only say nice things about the father, or vice versa. That's ridiculous.

Why should the father feel free to get out of paying for college just because his children resent him or are angry with him? Would you claim that he doesn't have an obligation to pay child support under those circumstances? If my child is mad at me, do I no longer have a moral obligation to make sure he is fed and provided with shelter?

That's the thing about moral obligations - they are unconditional. I am morally obligated to provide my children with food and shelter. I am morally obligated to provide them with an education appropriate for their needs, interests and abilities, to the extent that doing so does not make it impossible for me to provide them with food and shelter. My exH is equally obligated.

"If my child is mad at me, do I no longer have a moral obligation to make sure he is fed and provided with shelter?"

You still have the obligation too feed and shelter him if he's just mad at you and it will pass.
I think that obligation gets murky if he won't speak to you unless it's to insult you, or has cut you out of his life for some reason and it's not "just a phase". If a person choose to continue providing for someone who despises them, then that's fine... But I don't think they should be expected to if that person is capable of providing for themselves.

So if your 9 yo is mad at you, you still have to feed her. But if your 18 yo hasn't spoken to you in a year and the last thing she said to you was "I hate you and I want you out of my life forever", you shouldn't be expected to pay for her postsec.

"Should I not have assumed that he would be willing to send ALL of our children to college?"

Not necessarily. This isn't the case for your children, but let's make up an example...
Let's say you have recently divorced. You and your Ex have the financial means to put your three children through postsec without a penny of debt. Your oldest child just finished college and you paid for it entirely. Now, your twins, Billy and Sally, have just graduated high school and both want to go to postsec in September.
But...
Sally got excellent grades in high school, and was generally a polite and responsible kid who had a career path in mind for her university.
Billy had high school grades just barely above the entrance cutoff for college, and was a nightmare of a teenager who stayed out partying past curfew, talked back all the time, and has no career goals.
Should Billy and Sally both expect to have their postsec fully paid for?

IMO, if I were the parent who was willing and able to pay for school, I'd hand Sally the tuition cheque in a heartbeat. I know I can trust her to do her best and that she's ready.
But I'd ask Billy to work for a year and upgrade a few of his high school classes to prove to me that he's ready for university and get a better idea of what he'd like to do. If he couldn't or wouldn't do that, I'd say "No free school for you!"

Or, perhaps if I was concerned about being "equal", I'd ask them both to take out loans for their schooling and upon the successful completion of their second year, I'd pay it off and pay for things up front from then on. If one of them screwed up, then they'd be on their own for that money they borrowed. It might cost me a lot of extra money to pay off loans after two years, but that would be OK with me if I knew my kids had "earned it".

If all your children are equally ready for postsec, and your ExH's finances are capable of it, and you'd previously planned to fund school, then it's not out of line to assume he'll pay for them all... But children are individuals and should be treated as such, and circumstances can change over time, so I don't think it should be a blanket assumption.

"No, of course the mother does not have any moral obligation to only say nice things about the father, or vice versa. That's ridiculous."

This is a good example of a bad parent. Saying negative things about your child's other parent, harms the child as they are a part of both parents. I feel parents have a moral obligation to keep their thoughts to themselves if they have bad things to say about the other parent. But, that's just me.

and food/shelter for a minor child is not the same as education for an adult child. And yes, it depends on their chosen relationship with the parent. If they choose to be estranged, then why would a parent that the child refuses to visit, want to pay for that child's education. That's ridiculous.

and like Ceph says, your finances after divorce might be different and you don't know if the ex CAN afford it, unless you know the ins & outs of his finances (which I doubt he would share with you), it may only appear he might be able to afford it. Looks can be deceiving. Very nice houses might be mortgaged to the eyeballs, expensive cars, toys & trips may have him over extended, etc. And unless you have an order from the court or it's in the marital settlement agreement that he will pay it, it's none of the ex wife's business how he spends his money. Like it or not.

Of course I know that he can afford it. He and I were both required to submit a complete financial statement to the court. I know how much he earns (unless he is earning something under the table), and I know what his expenses are. Of course I know the ins and outs of his finances. It is part of the divorce process, and if you go back to court later, you have to fill the financial statement out all over again.

Yeah, that is just you. It is foolish and wrong to lie by omission to your children. If your exH were in jail, would you hide that from your child, too? If he were jailed on charges of extortion, would you refrain from telling your child that that was wrong? I would be a bad parent if I did not try to teach my children right from wrong, and if I ignored wrongdoing just because it was a relative doing it.

I would never try to limit by children's phone calls to or from their father. I would not threaten to prevent them from visiting their father if they didn't behave. That is being a bad parent.

ceph,

That is why I said that I was morally obligated to pay for a college education "appropriate for their needs and abilities." Some children can get into Harvard; others can only get into a community college. Some kids who could get into Harvard want to go to a less competitive school, or one that offers a major that Harvard doesn't. In my case, my exH informed me that he wanted our child who was number one in her high school class of over two hundred kids to go to community college. Fortunately she did not, and she is excelling at a very challenging college.

TOS, congrads to your child.

Also, to all those who recommend first going to CC, I would ask, would you really suggest giving up on the acceptance to Harvard and then hoping child could transfer in two year later? I think that is extremely unrealistic. Even if child works hard, etc. in CC, there are limited spots available for transfer sutdents.

"It's not much different than a father's moral obligation to pay for his daughters wedding. If he chooses not to, that's between him & her and he will have to deal with it, not anyone else. There's no legal obligation to pay for a child's wedding."

Well duh..You cannot possibly compare paying for wedding to paying for education. Wedding or not has no effect on a future of a person, education makes a tremendous difference.

"After divorce, Mom doesn't have the right to tell dad what his "moral" obligation is, just because SHE feels a moral obligation to help DD"

Parenting does not end because parents got divorced. Hopefully future of their children was decided way before they got divorced. We parent as a team and we discuss what our obligations are and X has rights to tell me and I have rights to tell him in re to our child.

Neither one of us can tell each other what to do with our personal lives or where to spend vacations but when it comes to parenting we have rights to tell each other anything we want.

Iammommy you weren't married and dovorced and neither one of your children has a functioning father, you raised them alone, so you cannot poissibly know how divorced parents operate. More than often they remain a team when it comes to raising kids. They stopped being husband and wife, but they remain mom and dad of the same child. Hopefully they discussed future of their children while they were together. Divorce does not change moral obligations of both parents.

I agree that in normal circumstances negative stuff about the other parent should be kept from children. But sometimes it really depends. If G_d forbid somebody's father turns out to be a pedophile or a serial killer I would expect mom to tell the kids.

"so you cannot poissibly know how divorced parents operate"

you can't possibly know everything about me or what I know. I know that divorced parents are "supposed" to work as a team and often, THEY DON'T. I know that divorced parent's are "supposed" to put their children first, before their feelings of anger & resentment, and often THEY DON'T. I know that divorced parent's are not supposed to use their children as "pawns" in legal proceedings, and often THEY DO. and I'm not suggesting that it's right for a parent to change their mind regarding agreements made during the marriage, but IT HAPPENS. If their are agreement made during the marriage or concerns about these issues during the divorce, it should be included as part of the marital settlement agreement, which then makes it legally binding, not just a "moral" obligation.

I have several "divorced" members of my family (including my parents) and I don't think I have to personally be divorced to understand when people are doing things wrong. I agree with cooperative parenting and the reality is that if that is how all divorced people think, the courts wouldn't be clogged with custody battles. and unfortunately, I do know how divorced people operate. I see it every day when I'm hired to serve papers to drag one or the other back into court. I've even had requests by some to embarrass or serve someone in a despicable manner. I refuse to serve someone in the presence of their children and I refuse to do it in a manner that embarrasses or humiliates them. I see that divorced people sometimes get caught up in their emotions and do things that are very harmful to the children, but they are blinded by their hatred of the other parent. and while most family law proceedings can be handled without a process server, it isn't just lowlife's that hire me. Some are very prominent & live in million dollar homes with respectable careers.

I agree that you always have a right to discuss children with one another, even when the children are grown. But, if one changes their mind from what was discussed during the marriage and it wasn't reduced to a legal contract, what good is it going to do to demand they do something that they don't have a legal obligation to do. It's all good and well if you agreed that as a couple, you would send your kids to college. but after divorce, you are no longer a couple. If he didn't agree in the MSA or there is no legal obligation and then decides he doesn't want to pay for it, what are you going to do? He may be morally wrong, but he was morally wrong when he committed adultery or broke the marriage vows. You can't force him to pay if there isn't a legal obligation. Then, it becomes between him and his child. The child may be angry with him and that's what he would have to deal with.

and if the father turns out to be a pedophile or serial killer, what is mom going to do? Sit the kids down and say "your dad is a XXX". That's not likely to be the situation and you know it. If dad is a pedophile, the kids probably know firsthand without mom telling them. and I don't think there are a lot of serial killer dads out there. If dad is in prison, then what's the purpose of telling the kids the details? Simply telling a small child "daddy did something bad and had to go away" is sufficient. When they get older and can understand, then maybe more details could be given. Kids identify themselves with their parents, especially the same sex parent and it hurts them to hear negative things (even if it's true) about their parents.

And the reality is that what kids get told is more likely comments like "dad cares more about his new GF than you" or "his new GF is more important that being on time to get you" or "oh, he can take a cruise but he only pays XX in child support" or "I can't buy you that because your dad doesn't give me enough support" or "It's all your dads fault we got divorced because he left me for that whore" or "it's just like your dad to always be late picking you up.. he must have more important things to do" and so on. Those are the comments that hurt kids but they get said all the time.

If parents don't work as a team, it does not mean they shouldn't. Of course many parents have no moral obligations whatsoever, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't. We pretty much are trying to describe how things should be if everyone cooperates. Of course there were always be people who won't cooperate, back off, change their mind or whatever. Of course you cannot force some people to do anything unless you drag them to court. It is like if I say that hitting young children is wrong and you say yes but many people do beat their children. It doesn't mean it is OK.

I believe that parents should have moral obligations to provide for kids' education to the best of their abilities and you say that there is no such moral obligation. We just have to disagree.

the point is that we don't disagree. I agree with what "should" happen but I'm just saying it doesn't always work out that way. My point is, Why beat your head against the wall if it's not going to change things?

We can only control what WE do ourselves....

"I refuse to serve someone in the presence of their children"

How on earth do you manage to avoid doing that, if you have to serve them at home? I was served (and it is done by a guy from the sheriff's office here) with divorce papers in front of 5 of my children, and if I had happened to have been at home the first time he came, I would have been served on my child's birthday. What a great birthday present.

How on earth would you suggest that you even keep your kids in the dark about what their father had done, if you chose to do so? Do you think an 18 and a 16 year old wouldn't figure it out??? Do you think that the older children are not going to share this info with the younger ones?

If the guy were in jail, everyone in the town would know about it, and I would much rather my child hear it from me than from a classmate.

If enough people get incensed about NCP's failing to provide support so their kids can go to college, the laws will change in more states. As I have said before, it is the law in a number of states already.

Someone in my state who fled to Canada with his girlfriend to avoid paying HALF A MILLION dollars in back child support was just extradited and is sitting in jail where he belongs. I suppose you would rather the children read about him on the front page of the paper than hear it from their mother. If she had just given up the fight, he might still be lounging around in Canada, and her children would be the ones who suffered most.

"I refuse to serve someone in the presence of their children"

How on earth do you manage to avoid doing that, if you have to serve them at home? I was served (and it is done by a guy from the sheriff's office here) with divorce papers in front of 5 of my children, and if I had happened to have been at home the first time he came, I would have been served on my child's birthday. What a great birthday present.

How on earth would you suggest that you even keep your kids in the dark about what their father had done, if you chose to do so? Do you think an 18 and a 16 year old wouldn't figure it out??? Do you think that the older children are not going to share this info with the younger ones?

If the guy were in jail, everyone in the town would know about it, and I would much rather my child hear it from me than from a classmate.

If enough people get incensed about NCP's failing to provide support so their kids can go to college, the laws will change in more states. As I have said before, it is the law in a number of states already.

Someone in my state who fled to Canada with his girlfriend to avoid paying HALF A MILLION dollars in back child support was just extradited and is sitting in jail where he belongs. I suppose you would rather the children read about him on the front page of the paper than hear it from their mother. If she had just given up the fight, he might still be lounging around in Canada, and her children would be the ones who suffered most.

I manage to avoid serving someone in front of the kids by first asking when the kids won't be there. I have also called the person I am going to serve on the phone, let them know I am going to serve them and prefer to do it when their kids are not home, and many times I set up a time. I have never had an uncooperative parent that refused to be served. The Sheriff's department (if they happen to still do serves, and a lot don't anymore) will only go our on weekdays, during business hours. They don't care what day it is or who is home. I do. I have the option of asking those questions and refusing to do a job that I don't agree with, such as when a person requests me to humiliate someone. The Sheriff's department will not refuse a serve if their fee is paid. That is one of the benefits of having a private process server. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of process servers that do like to make a big deal, humiliate or embarrass the person they are serving. I choose not to.

"Someone in my state who fled to Canada with his girlfriend to avoid paying HALF A MILLION dollars in back child support was just extradited and is sitting in jail where he belongs. I suppose you would rather the children read about him on the front page of the paper than hear it from their mother. If she had just given up the fight, he might still be lounging around in Canada, and her children would be the ones who suffered most."

and can you explain to me how the children are suffering any less because he's sitting in jail, rather than lounging in Canada?

When the children find out daddy's in jail because he didn't pay support for them, don't you think they are going to feel responsible for him being in jail? I don't think they are responsible and he is wrong for not paying his obligation, but that doesn't stop children from blaming themselves, and to me, that does more harm than good. My ex ran from his obligation and I chose to not pursue him and put him in jail. He had a wife (that probably supported the family because he never worked on the books) and four kids with his wife. Now that his kids are grown (and his kids with his wife are teenagers), he is finally working on the books and I'm getting some payments via wage assignment. It wouldn't have helped anyone (my kids or his wife & kids) if he were sitting in jail over past due support. I certainly don't agree with anyone not paying their obligation, but putting them in jail isn't really the best way to deal with it. I guess if I were vindictive, it would have put a smile on my face to see him rot in jail, but I'm not that vindictive.

Ima, I dont think it is always, or even frequenlty, vindicativeness. I think even the potential of jail, or short jail, will incentivize many to get a job and pay the back CS. Even the threat of lost drivers license, etc., may provide incentive. So by going to court, the finanical situation may improve. It is unfortunate that some CPs dont have the resources to pursue, and some NCPs can evade, but that doesnt mean the CP shouldnt go to court. And PS now that the laws on passports are getting tougher, that is another non-jail alternative.

It is vindictive to think that throwing someone in jail is going help the problem of someone not paying their child support. We don't have debtor's prison in the US. (or maybe it was the way theotherside said "where he belongs" that sounded like a vindictive person to me.

I agree that the threat or a few days in jail might be an incentive to get some guys to pay. But, If you are half a million in arrears and fleeing the country, it seems pretty hopeless that he's going to be able to get out from under that much back support, especially sitting in jail. My ex is over 100k in arrears. He hasn't had a license for years. He will most certainly never get a passport or bank account. There are non jail alternatives that work but the best way to get a NCP to pay is to foster a relationship between him and his children. I believe parent's are more likely to pay when they have a constant relationship with their children, but when a CP makes it difficult for them to see their children, they use withholding support as a retaliation to that. I don't think it's right on either side. Children have the right to see both parents and they have a right to be supported by both parents.

If a CP parent believes the NCP shouldn't have the child unsupervised, then they should be as flexible as possible to ensure the NCP sees the child supervised, instead of making it harder. There are always going to be some NCP's that just are not interested in seeing their kids and there's nothing you can do about that. But putting them in jail (for an extended time) is not going to get them to pay because they can't work. It is frustrating because I am one of the ones that has never received child support that was awarded to me.

My opinion is that, depending on each situation, the CP should go back to court. If I knew he had the means to pay and I felt I could collect, then yes, I would take him into court and pursue it. With my daughter's father, he lives in another state, has four minor kids with his wife and for most of their lives, he's been on welfare & disability. (He was trying to get SSI & SSD several years ago) It would be pointless for me to pursue him when he has nothing. My son's father, on the other hand, works & owns two homes, so I am currently pursuing back support from him. My oldest son's father just got out of prison and doesn't even have a car. He owes about 60K to me in back support but after he stopped seeing my son & his marriage fell apart, he got involved in drugs pretty bad and went to prison. I may never see a dime from him and my son is now 20. What good would it do to pursue that? His life is in shambles and I have built a better life for me and I'm happy.

I don't believe there is one blanket answer because every situation is different. I believe you should pursue an order and it will accumulate if they don't pay. I choose not to pursue a dead end. That doesn't mean I don't care. I've had to work multiple jobs when my kids were growing up and it wasn't fair to me or them, but I made a choice to do what I had to and live a peaceful life instead of fighting a battle and being in court all the time.

I have an order against my daughter's father & with interest, it grows every month. He will always owe it and if he ever has anything in the future, it will go to pay for his obligations. (his original amount to pay was $72 per month and in 17 years, it hasn't changed at all. With interest on the unpaid amounts, he now owes about $100k) His $72 a month would not have made our life that much better. Currently, I am getting almost $300 a month as back support because he is finally working & it goes directly into a savings account for my daughter to use for college. I've never counted on it so I treat it like it's not there.

Like I said, my oldest son's father owes (he was ordered to pay $196 a month) but just got out of prison. I have considered taking him back to court to get a life insurance policy in the amount of arrears with me as the beneficiary. I don't know if that's a possible recourse but I'm looking into it.

and my other son, his father and I went to court in November and we are still waiting for the courts ruling on whether I will be able to pursue back support against him. IF I am, he will owe me close to $80K. (plus interest if it's ordered) We are going to negotiate a lump settlement with him, if possible. He has the assets to settle it if he wants.

The passport rules and such reminds me of a dear friend of mine.
She and her mom booted her unemployed, alcoholic and abusive father out when she was 13 and her brother was 4. He, of course, went back to his hometown to drink, bum around and evade CS. Her mom filed deadbeat papers, but never expected to see a penny.

Much to their surprise, she got papers in the mail about five years ago that he was trying to leave the country. It turns out that he'd gotten himself a sugarmomma who wanted to take him on a cruise in Europe.
Sugarmomma paid ~$30000 for five years of CS for my friend and ~$95000 for her brother (the courts said that he had to pay the full amount for age 4 to 18, even though he was currently only 12, because they knew Dad would skip out again if he had the chance) Talk about an expensive trip!!!

Their mom handed my friend's money over to her to pay off her student loans and car payments. She invested her brother's into a trust fund for him that he'll have access to later in life.

There's a nice success story to cheer us all up.

lol, about fifteen years ago, I was watching the California Lottery Big Spin show and they announced the next spinner's name. It was someone else with the exact same name as my ex. I ran into the room (I think I was cooking dinner & heard the name) and for half a second, I had some hope.... oh well.

Several good things could come out of throwing this guy in jail - other deadbeat parents may think twice before trying the same thing, and, if this guy wants to get out of jail, he will cough up the money.

I just asked my adult son how he'd feel under those circumstances, if he had a father who owned half a million in back child support, and he said he would be GLAD that he was thrown in jail, and very happy, of course, to get the money.

how do you get the money if he's in jail? Unless he has it in a bank or assets somewhere else, he can't just pay it. and if he does have it in a bank or assets, those can be seized without tossing him in jail.

Jail is an incentive. If the NCP wasnt paying anything before, the CP has nothing to lose, and hopefully teh NCP will learn.

You're entitled to your opinion. I still think it's vindictive. I could have pressed to have my ex jailed but then it would have adversely affected his other four children to put their father in jail when at least he was being a parent to them. Is he a deadbeat? Yep. and he did the wrong thing by making more kids than he can take care of. I guess if he was capable of paying it, then it's an incentive that would work. But if he isn't capable of paying it, what good does it do, besides make the CP feel good to know the SOB is in jail, which is being vindictive.

Was he paying when he had additional child #1?, #2?

If not, and you had stepped up enforcement, he might not have had child #3 or 4.

Was he paying when he had additional child #1?, #2?

If not, and you had stepped up enforcement, he might not have had child #3 or 4.

He has never paid. He had #2, four months after my daughter, which is #1. His #2 has never lived with him (his mom has raised that one). He had #3, #4, #5 & #6 with his wife, all by the time my daughter was 6 and I didn't know where he was until she was 12. I doubt it would have made a difference to him. (and those are only the kids I know about)

Ima, I am truly sorry for all the children involved went through. But I think this situation is unusual. Many NCPS pay CS voluntarily. Others pay if threats (I am talking about legal threats, like no drivers license, no professional license, wage garnishment, and yes ultimately jail).

All this talk about voluntary CS reminds me again of my housemate's baby's nutty mother.
She thinks that the more he wants to have access to their baby, the more he should pay her in CS.

She said if he would go away entirely, she'd only want $100/month... But if he wants 50-50 custody after the baby is a year, she wants $650/month. She said if he wants him only one or two nights a week she would go down to $250/month.
He told his lawyer this logic and the lawyer burst into peals of laughter and said "That's DEFINITELY not how it works!"

I would LOVE to toss her into a room full of women who wish every single day that their children's dads would pay a single penny or even just send a birthday card once a year... I'd love to see the angry mob form when she got up and told what she thinks is a horrible sob story: "My baby's father, who just was a casual fling, has a secure job and owns his own home. When I said I was pregnant, he said that as soon as the paternity test came back positive, he wanted to be put on the baby's legal documents as father and that he'd pay reasonable child support and split incidental expenses with me. He comes over with dinner every Wednesday and spends all day every Sunday with us. He comes to the swimming pool with us on Monday nights. He comes to doctor's appointments whenever he can and bought my other child (who isn't his) Christmas and birthday presents just because he thinks she's a nice kid. When the baby is a year old, he'd like to begin to have him unsupervised and build up to 3 nights a week. Even though we're not romantically involved, he thinks it's important for us to get along for the sake of the baby and present a united parenting front"
Maybe I could market this scrap on pay per view!

I agree, but even you list jail last and it should be a last resort. I don't see how it helps anyone if the guy is locked up and can't work. By then, it's punishment and the rest are more of incentive for someone that is reluctant to pay than someone that just made too many kids that he can't take care of them all. I totally agree with the taking away licenses and passports, etc. But, if you take away a professional license, then that also takes away his ability to work... so that might be a good threat but carrying it out isn't going to help much in collecting.

I still feel that the best way to get NCP's to pay voluntarily is to foster a good relationship between them and their kids. and parents that complain to the kids about the child support, whether it's not enough or not paid on time, or whatever, that can be damaging to the child's relationship with the NCP, which in turn can affect whether or not the NCP offers to pay for additional things not ordered by the court, such as college or other extras. It may not be right, but it does happen.

A decent NCP pays child support regardless of the quality of the relationship between him and the children. The threat of jail or loss of license IS a significant incentive for those who are not decent enough to pay voluntarily.

perhaps you didn't comprehend my entire message, it says:

"which in turn can affect whether or not the NCP offers to pay for additional things not ordered by the court, such as college or other extras."

Of course nobody (in their right mind) is going to argue that lack of relationship is an excuse to not pay child support, there is really no excuse. It's a legal obligation regardless.

Jail wouldn't be an incentive for my BF's son's biological father! (if he were acknowledged on the birth certificate and if BM wanted money from him, that is)
He certainly wouldn't decent enough to pay, and I doubt the threat of jail time would motivate him one little bit.
He spends most of his time in jail anyhow and whenever he gets out, he just commits another crime and goes right back. What's a few more years in jail mean to him? Pfft, not a whole lot!

Ima,

I think most CPs will risk the chance that a NCP who isnt paying court ordered CS will not pay for extras that the NCP otherwise would have.

This is almost ludicrous. The NCP is far better off enforcing CS.

And as to the NCPs who are paying full and on time, there is no need to pursue collection alternatives.

No one is arguing that NCP shouldnt have relationship with children. TOS and I both have Xs with little or no involvement.

well, maybe you miss my point. If you have a NCP that is paying their support but the CP is constantly complaining that it isn't enough, etc. or finding reasons to make it difficult for the child to see the NCP (instead of being as flexible as possible) and the NCP feels frustrated by the CP all the time, when they are asked to pay for extras, they are more likely to say no.

Obviously, if a NCP isn't paying their basic support, they are not paying for extras.

I don't know the reasons your (you and tos) X's are not seeing their kids or how your kids feel about their father's, but from what tos has said, she has no problem telling her kids the "truth" about their dad. and that's up to her, but if telling her kids the "truth" affects how they feel about him, then it affects their father/child relationship which could very well be a reason if he doesn't see them. If a CP says or does something that affects how the kids feel about the NCP and it ends up affecting whether the NCP sees them and has a relationship with them, then it really is hurting the children. Kids don't need anyone to tell them if mommy or daddy is an a$$hole, they will figure it out themselves. If your kids don't see their father because they are angry at him for his affair (and you have never said a word to them about it) then it's completely on him, not you. But if one parent says negative things about the other parent (even if it's true), they are damaging their child's relationship with the other parent. Most of the time, children are forgiving of their parents but if they are encouraged to take sides, they usually will. Of course, younger children are more forgiving than older ones that understand better.

I dont know why you say most time kids are forgiving of parents. I think a lot of kids are angry re divorce and want their parents back togethor no matter what the adults say. I think this is a normal fantasy, and I get annoyed when I read about SMs assuming all of this is result of what they think mom is saying. Its easier for a SM to be annoyed at the mom, as she is the one person in the equation that the SM doesnt have to live with (even for a little).

Ima, maybe your children or stepchildren see that the biological parent is just not capable (for whatever reason) of providing care, and have forgiving. But in a situation where Dad has resources and is able, the child may be less forgiving.

Both TOS and I make every effort to see that Dad can see chidlren as much as he wants. I do most of driving.

"when they are asked to pay for extras, they are more likely to say no."

So they would take it out on the children, just because they were angry at their mother. Nice.

Obviously, you and I (and my state) disagree about college being an "extra" anyway.

If my exH didn't want the children to know he had been having an affair, he really shouldn't have taken the six year old to the OW's house and showed her the bedroom that he shared with the OW, when he hadn't yet filed for divorce. Even if she had not been aware of the impropriety of that, her older siblings certainly were.

I don't think that kids are forgiving of their parents, in general. Just as an example, Imamommy is certainly not forgiving of her mother.

I can say that my step daughter is 8 and she is very forgiving of her mom when she consistently disappoints her and lets her down. Her mom lies to her on a regular basis but she (as lots of kids do) wants to believe her. I am not saying that she will always be so forgiving. I think if her mom continues to do this, (as my mom did what she did all my life, and still does) that eventually, the kids grow up, and realize what the parent is doing. Of course that is going to affect how the child feels about the parent as they get older. Like I said, older children that can see what's going on or figure it out, are less forgiving than small children.

and I didn't say college was an extra, I said "college or other extras" You sure like to twist things in your favor to argue with me. (I knew you'd say something about that... thanks for not letting me down.)

"college or other extras" means college is an extra

college or extras means college is not an extra

This is normal grammer. No one was twisting anything. If you just wrote quickly, no big deal, but no need to blame anyone else for misinterpreting or twisting.

"Most of the time, children are forgiving of their parents but if they are encouraged to take sides, they usually will. Of course, younger children are more forgiving than older ones that understand better. " -- what you said was all chidlren are forgiving, but younger ones more so.

and I think to a degree they are forgiving. I don't hate my mom, I understand better, the things she says and does and I choose not to have a close relationship with her because I don't like the things she does. I don't know if I can forgive her because she continues to do those things, but we definitely are not estranged. I feel sorry for her because she hasn't been able to move on and get over the pain from her past. She will never be at peace with herself and lives with resentment (over choices she made or feels she was wronged) and regret. It's sad to me. I have made mistakes and done things that perhaps others feel that I should regret. I could wallow in regret because of my past, or I can take responsibility and move on. But it can't be changed and I have learned from it. My kids forgive me when I make mistakes, but the difference is when I admit I did wrong and change. If a parent doesn't learn from the mistakes they make, and continue to make the same mistakes that continue to hurt the children, then eventually the kids won't be forgiving.

I don't know the specifics of your situation, but my comments are general. My situation is not the same as yours and my opinions are derived from my personal experiences. Yours are from yours. My mom had four kids. Only one lives near her but hardly calls her. I think it is sad that her kids don't see her much, but she has brought it on by her actions. She expected us to take sides when they divorced and I was the one that took her side. It was very damaging to my relationship with her, that she spoke badly about my dad. I didn't have much of a relationship with my dad while I lived with her because it would upset her. I didn't get to have a closer relationship with my dad until I was in my mid 20's. It wasn't until I was in my early 30's, that I realized that she kept me from having a good relationship with my dad when I was a teenager, by the things she would say about him and making me feel guilty for seeing him & his current wife. So, when I suggest to you that things you or TOS say today (if you speak badly about your X's), may affect your relationship with your children in the future, it doesn't mean next week or next year. It may never happen with your kids, not all kids are the same. But there is a reason that it's written into many custody orders to not say anything negative about the other parent.