Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Question about Child Support

fitty76

By fitty76,
in Huddle Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Brooklyn 3.0 Grand Master

Brooklyn 3.0

Posted
Posted

IMHO, if you split custody 50/50 (was that court ordered?) then you should both be in charge of supporting your kid yourself. If she had sole custody and you only had visitation, yes you'd owe her support. But if you are both equally taking care of the child, then I don't see why you're giving her money at all. If the roles were reversed and you made a lot more money than her, no one in their right mind would expect her to give you money. Speak to a lawyer if it's a financial issue for you. If not, keep paying.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brooklyn 3.0 Grand Master

Brooklyn 3.0

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Shocker said:

250$ is like nothing for child support.  Don’t be a deadbeat…pay her this tiny amount and stop complaining about it

Wow. He's not being a deadbeat. When he has 50% custody, everything he does for his child comes out of his own pocket. Just as everything she does should come out of her pocket. Why is she getting extra money when they split custody equally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
toldozer Veteran

toldozer

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

IMHO, if you split custody 50/50 (was that court ordered?) then you should both be in charge of supporting your kid yourself. If she had sole custody and you only had visitation, yes you'd owe her support. But if you are both equally taking care of the child, then I don't see why you're giving her money at all. If the roles were reversed and you made a lot more money than her, no one in their right mind would expect her to give you money. Speak to a lawyer if it's a financial issue for you. If not, keep paying.

He said The 250 is specifically for health insurance and medication.  Do you think the child only uses the medication when with the mom and can't get hurt or sick when in his care? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skack25 Community Regular

Skack25

Posted
Posted

I'd talk to a lawyer.   If what you say is true about your income vs hers, you might find that you don't have to pay shiz.

There's this misconception that the father always has to pay the mother, and in most cases that holds true. However, the idea of child support is so that the children don't have a drastically different life in one house vs the other.  Talk to a lawyer my boy.  Good luck with it all either way.

You could also take a look at the child support worksheets.  I imagine that was already mentioned here, but I didn't read all the comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raskle Contributor

Raskle

Posted
Posted
On 4/10/2022 at 4:27 PM, toldozer said:

He said The 250 is specifically for health insurance and medication.  Do you think the child only uses the medication when with the mom and can't get hurt or sick when in his care? 

You know, as much as I raised a ruckus earlier, I also completely missed this part - My apologies and I agree. Since this is directly towards half of the insurance cost, then yes, there's absolutely no reason this shouldn't be paid to her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...