Ok, Tell Me How She Feels So That I Can Understand

[LisaR]

I am well aware of how it is. My husband has been there, done that before we were married (well, we were dating at the time). But if you don't think there isn't any partying/drinking/sex going on then you are well off base. Even the OP stated it wasn't an environment for the kids to be around. Why would you suppose that is?

Look, I've never once said he was a deadbeat or anything of the sorts. I'm looking at it in different ways, and one of those ways is I know how construction guys live. It's no different from cable linemen. And oh the stories I could tell...

OP, is there a middle spot your son could live where he could still commute to his job but also a better environment for the kids?

I never said he goes to work, comes home and holes up in his room pinning away for his kids he never sees. However, to describe him as some carefree guy who doesn't care about his kids and is living fat and free as a bachelor has not been proven. I am not saying you said that but plenty on this thread seem to believe it without any proof.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

It sounds to me like DIL has a free place to live, one kid in preschool, and a built-in babysitter in her mom, so she needs to get a job to help support these kids. (Of course, there may be extenuating circumstances that I don't know about.)

. . .

Sigh... only on the DIS is a man bashed for taking a job that pays enough for him to support his family, even if he's sacrificing family time to do it. What would the uproar have been if OP had instead said that her ds lives at home in a lousy paying job and gets food stamps and welfare to help support his children, but this is how it has to be so that he can be near his kids all the time?

I'm confused by this. You seem to be saying that the DIL;s mom should be considered a free built-in babysitter, and that she shouldn't be contributing to household expenses. Yet, you support the OP in setting limits about watching her grandchild. Why the inconsistency?

 

[phorsenuf]

I never said he goes to work, comes home and holes up in his room pinning away for his kids he never sees. However, to describe him as some carefree guy who doesn't care about his kids and is living fat and free as a bachelor has not been proven. I am not saying you said that but plenty on this thread seem to believe it without any proof.

Gotcha. I'm willing to guess it's in the middle somewhere though.

 

[FayeW]

I guess you are not ever going to get it.

I can't get it, you haven't said what it was! I guess you assumed (incorrectly) that when I said "the last few years of his career we lived in a home provided by OUR income" we were still living in base housing. We weren't, and hadn't been for half a dozen years.

Instead of posting "rolleyes" and "rotfl" perhaps you should actually READ. My income helped provide for the homes we OWNED. Clearly, it did not pay for subsidized base housing that was directly deducted from my husband's pay. When living on base was not what we wanted for our family I GOT A JOB and we bought a house. Not sure what was so hilarious about that.

 

[badblackpug]

Below you will find just ONE example of someone who apparently thinks he is a deadbeat. I don't have the time or energy to go back and find the others, but there have been more than a few that are insinuating just that.

Okay, I look at deadbeat differently. I think of deadbeat as someone who is totally uninvolved with their kids. No money, no contact, etc.

I think he needs to man-up and take full responsibility for his kids in the time that his are with him. Meaning he needs to arrange appropriate child care if he has to work, and he needs to provide adequate housing for his children. I can only go by what the OP has posted, and that is that he lives in an apartment that is not suitable for children, and that he frequently has to work on the days he is supposed to have the kids. That's it.

I think that it is unfair for either parent to expect the OP to babysit. I don't think it is right for the daughter in law to be angry with the OP because she has another obligation. I understand that she is probably frustrated with the ex husband and took it out on the mother. I understand why she is frustrated.

As for child support, it is a formula. It is a formula based on the non custodial parents income, and the amount of time that the child spends with the non custodial parent. If the child spends 50% of their time with both parents, then there is no child support, because it is assumed that the parents each pay for 50% of the child's living expenses. If the child is with one parent in a more disproportionate amount of time, that parent receives child support. As it stands these children are with their mother 6 days out of the week. The child support that would be paid would reflect that the mother is responsible for the majority of their living expenses. Just think of it simply. The way it is working now, she feeds the kids 18 meals a week, he feeds them 3.

Now, granted, none of us know the true details of what he is contributing to the mother financially, and whether, or not, that is a "great" income or " a lot" of money is subjective. What I think is a lot, someone else might think is a pittance. But, having seen this 1st hand, and knowing that, often, courts are biased against men, things could get much worse for the son if the ex took him to court.

Also, kids are only little for so long. There is a very limited amount of years where they actually do want to hang out with their parents. Foster that bond now, establish that relationship now. Once they are teens they won't want to go to dad's or grandma's every weekend.

 

[Darcy03231]

Okay, I look at deadbeat differently. I think of deadbeat as someone who is totally uninvolved with their kids. No money, no contact, etc.

I think he needs to man-up and take full responsibility for his kids in the time that his are with him. Meaning he needs to arrange appropriate child care if he has to work, and he needs to provide adequate housing for his children. I can only go by what the OP has posted, and that is that he lives in an apartment that is not suitable for children, and that he frequently has to work on the days he is supposed to have the kids. That's it.

I think that it is unfair for either parent to expect the OP to babysit. I don't think it is right for the daughter in law to be angry with the OP because she has another obligation. I understand that she is probably frustrated with the ex husband and took it out on the mother. I understand why she is frustrated.

As for child support, it is a formula. It is a formula based on the non custodial parents income, and the amount of time that the child spends with the non custodial parent. If the child spends 50% of their time with both parents, then there is no child support, because it is assumed that the parents each pay for 50% of the child's living expenses. If the child is with one parent in a more disproportionate amount of time, that parent receives child support. As it stands these children are with their mother 6 days out of the week. The child support that would be paid would reflect that the mother is responsible for the majority of their living expenses. Just think of it simply. The way it is working now, she feeds the kids 18 meals a week, he feeds them 3.

Now, granted, none of us know the true details of what he is contributing to the mother financially, and whether, or not, that is a "great" income or " a lot" of money is subjective. What I think is a lot, someone else might think is a pittance. But, having seen this 1st hand, and knowing that, often, courts are biased against men, things could get much worse for the son if the ex took him to court.

Also, kids are only little for so long. There is a very limited amount of years where they actually do want to hang out with their parents. Foster that bond now, establish that relationship now. Once they are teens they won't want to go to dad's or grandma's every weekend.

Every state is different when it comes to child support. Where I live both parents gross income is plugged into an equation. Some deductions are allowed (the cost of health/dental insurance and child care are the two big ones). The formula spits out a number. Generally if one person has primary custody it will be approximately 25% of the gross income for one child, 33% for two children, 40% for three or more children. If there is a 50/50 custody arrangement, unless both parents earn approximately the same amount, one parent can still be paying child support. If one parent makes $100,000 a year and the other makes $25,000 a year the person making more will still pay child support (and usually the guideline amount or pretty close to it). The Court cannot order either parent to pay anything extra for child care, extracurricular expenses, clothing, etc.

 

[badblackpug]

Every state is different when it comes to child support. Where I live both parents gross income is plugged into an equation. Some deductions are allowed (the cost of health/dental insurance and child care are the two big ones). The formula spits out a number. Generally if one person has primary custody it will be approximately 25% of the gross income for one child, 33% for two children, 40% for three or more children. If there is a 50/50 custody arrangement, unless both parents earn approximately the same amount, one parent can still be paying child support. If one parent makes $100,000 a year and the other makes $25,000 a year the person making more will still pay child support (and usually the guideline amount or pretty close to it). The Court cannot order either parent to pay anything extra for child care, extracurricular expenses, clothing, etc.

Totally different here. Here child support is based solely on the non custodial parent's income (I am not including alimony in this, that is a different thing altogether) So essentially, if the child lives with his mother 6 days a week, and she makes a million dollars a year, and dad makes $25,000 a year, he will still pay child support. Cost of insurance is not deducted from child support. Child care is figured based on a percentage according to whose income is larger. So in the case of millionaire mom it might be a 90/10 split, but that cost would be over and above child support. It's a very wacky thing to figure out, because one parent can be poverty level poor, and one Bill Gates rich, but if the child's time is split evenly between the households, there isn't any support ordered.

 

[LisaR]

Okay, I look at deadbeat differently. I think of deadbeat as someone who is totally uninvolved with their kids. No money, no contact, etc.

It still goes without saying that some posters have been ridiculously harsh on this son without beginning to know all the details. And even though some details have been given from the beginning, some posters are still insisting he isn't spending "any" time with his kids and he isn't working or supporting his family when the OP'er has said otherwise. They are insinuating that he is a deadbeat father. Others have clearly stated that he can never undo this and he will never have a relationship with his kids. Some have blown this completely out of proportion.

I think he needs to man-up and take full responsibility for his kids in the time that his are with him. Meaning he needs to arrange appropriate child care if he has to work, and he needs to provide adequate housing for his children. I can only go by what the OP has posted, and that is that he lives in an apartment that is not suitable for children, and that he frequently has to work on the days he is supposed to have the kids. That's it.

I think that it is unfair for either parent to expect the OP to babysit. I don't think it is right for the daughter in law to be angry with the OP because she has another obligation. I understand that she is probably frustrated with the ex husband and took it out on the mother. I understand why she is frustrated.

Agree 100% and as ridiculous as this thread has become, I don't think there is one person on this thread who doesn't agree with this.

As for child support, it is a formula. It is a formula based on the non custodial parents income, and the amount of time that the child spends with the non custodial parent. If the child spends 50% of their time with both parents, then there is no child support, because it is assumed that the parents each pay for 50% of the child's living expenses. If the child is with one parent in a more disproportionate amount of time, that parent receives child support. As it stands these children are with their mother 6 days out of the week. The child support that would be paid would reflect that the mother is responsible for the majority of their living expenses. Just think of it simply. The way it is working now, she feeds the kids 18 meals a week, he feeds them 3.

Now, granted, none of us know the true details of what he is contributing to the mother financially, and whether, or not, that is a "great" income or " a lot" of money is subjective. What I think is a lot, someone else might think is a pittance. But, having seen this 1st hand, and knowing that, often, courts are biased against men, things could get much worse for the son if the ex took him to court.

The reality of it is, he is very unlikely to receive custody no matter what. Unless the mother is a documented drug addict, the likelihood that the son is going to get custody and not have to pay child support is slim to none. It isn't the way it works in this country. He is working to support his family so he can not possibly be available 50% of the time. Even if he quits the wrestling gig, he is still working five to six days a week. He can't possibly see his kids 50% of the time. The wife isn't working. Of course she is going to be with the kids way more than he is. I'd be concerned if she didn't work and only saw her kids as often as the husband.

Also, kids are only little for so long. There is a very limited amount of years where they actually do want to hang out with their parents. Foster that bond now, establish that relationship now. Once they are teens they won't want to go to dad's or grandma's every weekend.

My husband is one of the best fathers in the world, IMO, but he certainly doesn't come close to spending an equal amount of time with our kids as I do. When they were little, he hated the fact that he would often get home from work and they were already asleep and he left in the morning before they were awake. He also traveled a lot more when they were little so he was gone often. It was what it was. He wasn't willing to quit and take a job at McDonald's just so he could see the kids more often. Money isn't everything but it is something. He is very close to the kids and always has been. We made it work and I do not think we are an unusual family in this regard. I think it is very common for at least one parent to work crazy long hours. In many families, both parents are doing that. There are plenty of after school extended care facilities and latch key kids for a reason. In a perfect world, every parent is taking full advantage of spending a significant amount of their day bonding with their children. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world.

 

[sasywtch]

Totally different here. Here child support is based solely on the non custodial parent's income (I am not including alimony in this, that is a different thing altogether) So essentially, if the child lives with his mother 6 days a week, and she makes a million dollars a year, and dad makes $25,000 a year, he will still pay child support. Cost of insurance is not deducted from child support. Child care is figured based on a percentage according to whose income is larger. So in the case of millionaire mom it might be a 90/10 split, but that cost would be over and above child support. It's a very wacky thing to figure out, because one parent can be poverty level poor, and one Bill Gates rich, but if the child's time is split evenly between the households, there isn't any support ordered.

In CA, it is possible if there was a 50/50 custody arrangement, that Bill Gates would be paying the other spouse child support (or even if the poorer spouse only had the kids 20% of the time, they would still get child support). The theory is, the children should live approximately at the same level they did before the divorce.

They took my ex and my wages, minus the outgo and put it into the computer to get the formula how much child support I was to get. This formula is based on weekends with dad plus a day during the week. He was not taking them on the weekends so I got 10 % more for the extra lodging/feeding for his days he didn't have them.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Lisa, please do not put words or intent into my mouth....
Nowhere, EVER, have I been the one to call the OP's son a deadbeat.
NEVER..... Others have made some harsh comments

I have, however, talked a lot about his lack of personal responsibility as an adult with two children.

And, as for those posters who seem to be be assuming (never assume anything!!!!) that my views are clouded by some personal experience... that again could not be further than the truth.... Completely UNTRUE.

My personal situation is the total and complete opposite.
My DH and I have been together, owned and lived in a total of two homes, over 25 years...
Looking to retirement since my husband began his career in his early-mid twenties.
So, please people... do not be assuming anything or putting any words in my mouth.

I did give one example of a family where the dad was always having excuses, chasing that 'better job' etc...etc... etc.... with very serious results. But, even in that case, they have always, ALWAYS had their own roof over their heads... and their mothers/family members never had to involve themselves to take up their slack. A bad situation, with some real issues, lack of maturity and personal responsibility, and lack of making the responsible decisions... Yes... definitely. But, nowhere near as bad as where I see the OP's son and his children.

It is just basic facts here. They have no roof of their own over their heads. Their relatives are having to involve themselves. He, thru his own personal choices, sees very, very, little of his children. Just facts. Basic facts that can not be argued. Only attempts to 'justify'.

Not 'bashing', no judging thru the influence of any other negative personal experience. None of that, at all.

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

I have a feeling the OP is not going to respond, or even read the rest of these posts. At this point the post is just causing arguments between posters. A lot of good points have been made but no one is ever going to be right or win. Hopefully everything gets settled and the 2 little girls get all the love and care they deserve.

 

[LisaR]

I have a feeling the OP is not going to respond, or even read the rest of these posts. At this point the post is just causing arguments between posters. A lot of good points have been made but no one is ever going to be right or win. Hopefully everything gets settled and the 2 little girls get all the love and care they deserve.

I agree. Some of us can't even agree on the "facts." I'm out. I hope this entire family is able to pull it together for the little girls.