Women Are In The House To Stay

The court order took everything into account so why are you sending me this?
Take it back to court if you want it is up to you but you know that it is all bullshit.
Why can't you get a job to pay to feed the kids yourself?  I don't understand it??
There is no way they eat more than 400 a moth in food.  There is no excuse .  You can
live on my money and sit on
your ass if you want, I guess cause the court allows it, but is that the example you
want to show your kids? that women are in the house to stay?  There is no excuse for
you not findiing work in my opinion.  If you were working then you would
not need to do this all the time would you?  You are just being greedy because in
reality you do not need anything from me to raise the kids, I don't understand why me
putting money away every month to give them free education is not doing something for
them?  Think about it.    I wish I had my education paid for as I would have good
credit now and not have to live on cash.  What is wrong with you anyways?  I thought
you were going to change moving out there and getting work and stuff but I guess
I was wrong.  It does not take this long to find a job out thee if you were looking.
Why not get a job and make life easier on everyone?  That is what everyone else does
don't they?  Even working part time or waiting on tables there will make you
enough money and give you a flexible schedule so ther is no excuse.  I bet you make
good money on tips considering the money thrown around there.



The deplorable deadbeat stated that my children's education is being paid for.  Well
allow me to explain something:  he is supposed to put $300.00 into a RESP for our
children every month.  By the time our children are ready to enter university this
means that he would have contributed $43,200 to an RESP (which has not been set up
as per court order).  With rising costs of tuition this grandiouse amount will not
even cover two years of university per child.  So they're education is certainly
neither "free" or "paid for" by him.  And as I previously stated, this account
has not been established as per court order.  The money is supposedly sitting in his
bank account until he has time to set up an account for them.  This was supposed to
be done six months ago.

I would also like to explain why I am not currently employed, as I do believe that it
is certainly my responsibility to support my children as much as it is the deadbeats.
First and foremost I have recently moved to a new town where I don't know
anyone thus childcare has been near impossible to find,second  we are currently in a
recession, employers are not hiring and when they do there are a large number of
people who have lost their jobs applying for the positions.

What I find despicable is the comment the deadbeat made concerning women.  Do I want
to teach my children that women are in the house to stay?  I didn't think women were
in the house to stay any longer, and I didn't think it was socially unaceptable
for a woman to stay at home and raise her family.  My children have seen me go to
work everyday as well as stay home and be a mom.  They have dreams and aspirations
just like every other child has regardless of whether their mothers stay at home or
enter the workforce.  What my children are being taught is that no matter what
they decide to do with their lives all that matters is that it makes them happy and
gives them a sense of accomplishment.

My question for the deadbeat is:  Do you want to teach your children to avoid
responsibility?

Equity Clause and Child Support

I think you better read the law and not just the tables.(1) There is an equity clause when you look at things so take the time and read it, or ask your lawyer, he should have told you that, my lawyer did! If you want me to research it and send you the link when I get home tonight let me know but stop this shit. You can always find time to talk to me about money but you rarely call me about the kids school or parent/teacher or anything so who is keeping this agreement? You are the one trying to usurp and change it all the time so who do you think will look like the fool. You set the rules yourself you dummy!! Next time you email me it better be about the sneakers I just bought or something to do with the girls and not just being a money grubbing sack of shit all the time. I am more than happy to provide this info in a court setting. I can show a pattern of when you contact me around my paydays you loser. If your man's 200K is not enough, find a job. (2) When you come to court you better bring a complete list of names and contacts that you have applied to so they can be checked because I believe not one word of what you say anymore.

(1) No research will need to be completed by this Deplorable Deadbeat Dad. He knows I am smarter than to take his "word" for anything. Although I knew there was no such thing as an equity clause I decided to research it anyway, just in case I was wrong. By the way, the 200k that he is referring to is my boyfriend's income, not mine. The following is the result of the research I completed:

Judges must follow the guidelines In most cases, if parents ask the court to decide
the amount of child support under the Divorce Act , the judge must refer to the guide
lines in setting the amount.There are two possible exceptions to this rule. In these
two situations, the judge may order a different amount of child support. But, the
judge must first look at what the guideline amount would be before adjusting the
child support. The two possible exceptions are:

* special provisions; and
* consent orders.

The receiving parent is expected to contribute to the costs of raising the children
in proportion to his or her income. The standards of living of the children and the
receiving parent are interrelated because they live together. Any money that the
receiving parent spends on the household will also benefit the children.



 Child support is the joint responsibility of both parents, not their new
     spouses.
 
 
 The guiding principle of the Federal Child Support Guidelines is that both
     parents should share the same portion of their income with their child as
     they would if they had continued to live together. The federal guidelines do
     not require the courts to consider a new spouse's income.

     If a parent does not supply the documents needed to prove income, the court
     may order that he or she do so or face serious penalties. The penalties could
     include being found in contempt of court or having to pay the other parent's
     legal costs.

(2)   The Deplorable Deadbeat is fighting paying $400.00 a month for child support and criticizing
       me for not working.  Well, for one thing I have always been the parent who provides
       the necessities of life to our children.  Another thing, when we were together I paid the car
       payment, rent, and child care while his money went "up in smoke".  So the fact that he is
       demanding a list of businesses that I have applied for work to is appalling.  He seems to
       forget that I am the parent who cares for these children on a daily basis and makes sure
       that all of their needs and wants are provided for  (with a whopping $600.00 a month to
       do so).

Irrational Reasons Not To Pay Child Support

Irrational as defined by a dictionary: Not consistent with or using reason; "irrational fears"; "irrational animals".

One element in the soul is irrational and one has a rational principle-Aristotle.

If this is true then what happens to a soul that has completely lost the rational principle? It seems as if I have been dealing with such a person and I was curious so I "googled" it. Aristotle's Theory of Contrariety was the first web page listed so I clicked on it and soon realized I didn't need or want to know the answer. No matter how many papers, theories, or studies I read, I am never going to understand someone who has totally lost his "rational principle" or complete and utter lunacy nor do I want to.

What I do want to understand are the irrational reasons why a person thinks they should not help support their children.

I was recently offered answers to this question by a deadbeat dad, with so many "issues" he would make an incredible and fascinating case study for any professional. The following is the first, of many, "insightful and entertaining" posts to come:

The following post is a reason as to why a man should not pay $200.00 every two weeks for two children in child support, as explained by an irrational deadbeat:

If you think that you are a great mom being a money grubber then leave it at that. What kind of a person wants more than 200K per year for their family. It is greedy and disgusting of you to ask and I will fight that point in court. Go through the law and read it, support is at the judges discretion so remember that. If you look greedy what do you think would happen? Do you think you are going to get all of this money. I would suggest to stop this BS and get yourself a job, You are not looking, that is why. Wait til I get you in court cause you will look like a complete idiot. Anyone that would spend money on a lawyer rather than spend it on their kids is really only looking to be greedy and that is it. Why is your money for the lawyer not enough to get you through until you get a job? Because there will be no job and you know it you joke.

This "person" currently does not pay any child support and has clearly lost his "rational principle"