Driving Men Into Bankruptcy

I am divorced. Domestic violence was an issue as were some other things I won't get into. He refused counseling, and refused medication and treatment for his diagnosed mental health issues.

When we went through our divorce, I did not ask for alimony though I could have gotten it. I knew it would be hard enough getting child support out of him, and I felt it was my responsibility to support myself: not my former spouse's.

The child support amount awarded was relatively small, but there really is no way to make it fair to all involved unless the one paying it is extremely wealthy.

Even though I could ask for and get more, I do not. He has a family with 3 children to support and a wife. I have our child full-time with all rights.

I believe it is my responsibility to take the majority of the financial responsibility, since I have our child (by my choice) the majority of the time. To ask for more would only hurt 3 other innocent children who did not ask to be involved in this. Our child together is fine. I struggle to make ends meet, but we have always been blessed with shelter, utilities, clothes, food.

The Facts About the Cost of Raising a Child:

Studies have been done on what the actual cost is for raising a child. For most, the amount awarded in child support is not even close to half of what the figure is. The other side of it is that the one taking on the responsibility for having primary custody/care of them, logically, should also be willing to take on all that entails: including the financial responsibility.

The one paying the support usually struggles to make ends meet, as well. They are trying to support two households on one income. Nowadays most households have two incomes supporting their one household. See the dilemma here?

The ones who suffer the most are the kids. They go without and all too often they get to hear how they can't have or do this or that because 'that deadbeat is too cheap to pay the child support' or 'that bloodsucker takes all my money so I can't even eat'.

The one paying the child support becomes bitter and feels the one receiving it is using for themselves; the one receiving it becomes bitter and feels the one paying it is getting to live the high-life while they, themselves and the children suffer and struggle.

All involved have a story, and usually it is a very sad one all the way around.

Men Driven into Bankruptcy:

This brings me to the bankruptcy part.

I have a friend who recently went through a divorce and got totally shafted. 75% (yes 75%) of his meager income is going to child support and alimony to the wife that left him because she 'wanted to be happy' (Happiness comes from within, by the way).

On top of the 75% of his income he is losing, he also has to pay 1/2 of all out-of-pocket expenses for their health care, and 1/2 of her work-related child-care expenses.

Isn't that some of what "child support" is supposed to cover?

He already pays for all of the insurance expenses for the kids, and will continue to do so.

The mediator determined they both needed anger management classes since in the one session she had with them jointly to discuss the case before the hearing they both displayed some strong emotions (no angry outbursts or threats or yelling or anything, mind you). She also decided from this one visit their kids needed counseling.

He was ordered to pay for all of the counseling for the kids which his insurance will not cover. He was ordered to pay for all of his anger management classes.

He has also has to pay interest on what they determined now that he owes for the time while this was being processed.

He is currently paying the $10,000 in debt that was left to him when she took the kids and left. This includes the expense of him graciously moving her things which she left behind and then claimed she couldn't live without, with him, when he moved across the country to be able to see his kids.

On top of all of that: he currently has two children from a prior marriage he has full custody of and is supporting. He gets no child support for them. None of that counted for much in the decision-making process and calculations.

So, with the debt payment, the 75%, and the additional costs and fees, he has no money to support himself and his other two children. He has to pay his own legal fees, and hers, too, even though she left and she filed.

She gets the tax exemption every year in spite of the fact that her 'minimum wage' won't be contributing nearly as much to the care and support of the kids as what he has been ordered to pay. How does that work?

His gross income is too high to qualify for any assistance programs, and they don't look at how he is getting soaked on the support/alimony/etc issues. Some of his children now get to suffer so his former spouse can have more. (Her income plus child support plus alimony: and she lives with her parents rent/expense free).

Since when is it ok to financially reward people for irresponsibly breaking up a family, which hurts children?

Even though she has work skills, she opted to go to school so when the calculations were made she was calculated at 'no income' now and only minimum wage when she starts working.

Huh?

If she is going to school to make minimum wage she would be better off skipping school and the associated debt!

Apparently, that is just one of many ways the system can be worked in order to really sock it to the one who will have to pay.

Child Custody:

There was no abuse or neglect involved on his part, though she has some documented neglect/abuse issues with children.

The mediator asked him why he wanted custody of the kids. The same question was not asked of his almost-ex-wife. (Detecting some bias there?)

Even though awarded 'joint custody' they were awarded to her 'primary care'. They live with her, and he gets visitation. How is that 'joint' custody? I thought joint custody meant shared time and no child support paid by either party since both had the kids about half the time.

Unless there is abuse or neglect, there is no reason why any father who has been in the life of his child every day since birth suddenly should only have a few hours a week; or have it held against him when he can't take a visit due to working in order to support two households and responsibly meet his court-ordered obligations (which if he doesn't meet he will go to jail).

Statements in child custody laws regarding how it should be about the welfare of the children are laughable. That is truly rarely considered. Even statements from the children themselves are rarely given any weight in the matter in spite of the fact that the law stipulates there must be weight given to them.

The Bottom Line:

There is no reason, in my opinion, why the one who leaves and files should be awarded any alimony unless fault can be and is clearly assigned to the other one. That is rewarding people for breaking up homes and harming children.

There is no reason, in my opinion, that the one paying should be driven into bankruptcy and homelessness. Nothing about divorce is fair, but whom does it serve to destroy the life of one of the parents? The vindictive other party. They get to use the law in order to lash out. That is wrong and clearly not what the law was designed to do.

The law is supposed to be about justice. There is no justice in sacrificing the welfare of some children for the sakes of the others just because; nor is there justice in bankrupting someone just because.

Epilogue:

You want to leave to find yourself? Ok, find a job while you are at it, like the rest of us do, instead of expecting the one you left behind to continue to support you.

You want your freedom? Ok, you are free to support your own backside. Why should the one you left for no good reason have to support your flaky tail-end? Just because you say so?

Right.

Men are getting shafted. Men are getting driven in to bankruptcy. Children are being hurt.

The system is horribly flawed and many lives are being harmed by it. It is time our legislators take an honest look at the situation and initiate changes which are fair and do consider the welfare of the children, rather than just assume one parent is naturally better than the other. It is high time the welfare of the paying party (who usually has to pay for transportation for their visitation which if they miss gets held against them) and any children they have be considered as well.

It is time something happens to make this sad process more fair and especially make it more about what it truly right for the kids instead of what attorney is the smoothest talker, or the bias of a mediator or judge.

But that is just my humble opinion.