• dailyachesandpains said on Feb 19, 2008....

  HH:  I see no reason for the ex-husband to pay for the ex-wife...as in alimony.  As far as the children, if the new man didn't adopt the children and the ex didn't sign them over for adoption by the new man than he SHOULD still pay for them.  They are his children, not the new husband's.  He should be glad that the new husband will be able to provide them with more than what they were getting, and not just money and gifts.  More love in the house as a whole is priceless. 
   
  Daily

• uniquely-ironic said on Feb 19, 2008....

  I'm with Daily on this.  Unfortunately a lot of people see the remarriage of the spouse as an opportunity to lessen their financial responsibility.  I'm the one in my own situation that pays child support and I know that even if my ex were to remarry that my kids would still want me to continue supporting them. 

• destinydiva said on Feb 19, 2008....

  I think they should continue paying regardless....even if one of them were to marry a millionaire...  :-) xx

• SeanRenaud said on Feb 19, 2008....

  Honestly it depends on the situation.   When you remarry and a new man enters the picture he is obligated to provide for you and your children.  That's his job it's as simple as that.  I mean unless you are going to say that if a man marries a single mother he has no responsibility to the children.
   
  My personal opinion is that if the wife CAN afford the children on her own and has full custody the man shouldn't have to do a damned thing.  (He still should but legally he should be free.)  Ailimony which wasn't really part of this discussion is pretty much robbery in most cases.  The only acception I make is for women with little or no work skills who could argue that they can't divorce their husbands because without him they'd be out on the streets.

• Eilan said on Feb 19, 2008....

  Some people will look for any way to get out of being responsible for, well, anything.  
  
  Before my husband retired, his salary was about three times my ex's salary.  It didn't affect the amount of child support my ex had to pay.  Although my husband makes no distinction between my two oldest daughters and the two children we have together, he's not legally obligated to provide financial support, health insurance, etc. for the oldest children.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Feb 19, 2008....

  Something being legal and something being right aren't the same thing.  There was no good reason why your ex should have had to continue when somebody else had already taken care of it.

• Eilan said on Feb 19, 2008....

  My girls are lucky that a real man stepped up to the plate.  Frankly, we'd all be better off if my ex were to disappear from the picture so my husband could just adopt the girls, but that isn't going to happen. 
  
  In the meantime, I'll continue to accept that whopping $130 a month (for two children) and my ex can thank me every day for not asking for more, because based on what he's making now, I'd get at least triple what I'm getting now.
  
  
  

• Never_Mind_The_Quality said on Feb 19, 2008....

  I'm with Daily too,
  
  I'm devorced too and have two lovely kids.
  My wife remarried and I still pay for the kids.
  They have a lovely new brother and I see them
  on a regular basis. Sometimes even have dinner with them.
  
  The thing is, the Ex of my love refuses to pay for his kids,
  leaving us with double costs. So I basicly feel Fucked!
  
  Still, I am with Daily ;-))
  
  

• littleMamaMo said on Feb 19, 2008....

  it is only right for the parent to care for the children even if it's only through child support. Not only because they created them but because it maintains a relationship for everyone. It's bad enough for a child to lose the family dynamic they had, but when the absent parent dosen't take responsibility is enhances the feelings of abandonment ( maybe not for all kids but certainly for a lot). i guess that's all I have to say :)

• Fallyn said on Feb 19, 2008....

  they would still be responsible...it is still THEIR children.
  and something my lawyer recently pointed out.....what kind of person doesn't feel obligated to support their own children.
  
  

• Lucytorial said on Feb 19, 2008....

  My husbands ex has remarried, they are trying for a child, their combined incomes outway ours by a long shot but we still pay child support and will do so until he is of age.  It has nothing to do with the other persons new mate, you bought the child into the world you damn well support that child and the women/man who helped you.
  
  The benefit of remarrying or gaining a partner helps to lift the lifestyle of the child and so it should tit for tat doesn't work in the world of divorce with children, the children are more important than bickering about a new mate and income.
  

• dyingman said on Feb 19, 2008....

  Add another vote for Daily.
  I'm against alimony though.  You want money from the husband and he no longer has the benefit of your company?
  
  There was an earlier poll asking whether I would consider marrying a single mom and Sean's answer was precisely the reason I would avoid falling for a single mother.  It's VERY hard on a relationship if a man refuses to support children that are not his.  I don't think it's out of line to expect considerable gratitude from a man who offers any out of the goodness of his heart but it's very easy for that unexpected benefit to slowly be taken for granted and the altruist to be seen as a cad if he reduces the largess in any way.
  
  Better to avoid the whole problem in the first place.  Ex husbands like this are at the heart of the matter even for single mothers whose exes ARE responsible.  It's not as though you can ask such personal questions early to find out whether the relationship is toxic.
  
  
  
  
  

• Lucytorial said on Feb 19, 2008....

  Alimony... well thats a different kettle of fish.... no way jossay! Its been hard on me as the new partner of a man who has a child to another women and I do not begrudge anything to the son, a part of life really is the fact that he is a package. I take the package not just the bits I like.

• secretlife said on Feb 19, 2008....

  my vote's with daily too.
   

• kumarilata said on Feb 19, 2008....

  Child support should continue.

• husbandhater said on Feb 20, 2008....

  Fallyn you'd be surprised at how many men or woman don't feel it's their obligation.Espesially when someone else enters the picture.
   
  Lucy  I agree with you and most of the consensus all the way.I just wish many women and men thought like you. You sound so very proud of your situation and I'm proud of what you said about you and your ex. I hope my ex feels the same way when he gets the new childsupport bill as it has been upped after 10yrs.
   
  Thanks to Daily and everyone else who commented. This is something that weights heavy on my mind.

• husbandhater said on Feb 20, 2008....

  Since Alimony keeps coming up I'll say this: It should be either left for the rich and/well off,or for those guys who either let their wife stay home and raise the kids or feel it's her duty to and for her to not seek higher education or employment. Either way their is no excuse why a woman in today's society cannot get up and go learn a trade,become educated during that period of time so that employment  is an option.
   
  Some moms are educated the couple just agrees that the child or children need her more. She should still get alimony so that she is afforded time to transition the children into a different way of life and herself back to work. If this takes a bit more than a year this is o.k. too as everyone doesn't take well to change.

• FutureGoddess said on Feb 20, 2008....

  HH - In New Jersey, the laws are basically moving towards your last comment.  If the woman can work, the judge will require that the woman go out and find employment regardless of how long she has been home as a "wife and mother" prior to divorce.  However, while she is either becoming educated and/or finding a job, the husband will continue to support her in the manner to which she has become accustomed.  The Alimony will continue to abate until it is just down to "incidentals" or unless the woman remarries

  As for children - alimony and child support are two totally separate things.  The child was born of the father and he will have to continue to support said child until the time of 18 or after college (depending on the agreement during the divorce) if father can afford to do so. 

  I recently read a very interesting case:  A man suing his ex - wife re: support for "their" child.  Turns out the woman had an affair during her marriage of which the hubby was unaware and recently he found out that the son they had is NOT the son he thought was his all this time.  Does he have to continue to pay child support? 

• Shameus_O'Patrick said on Feb 20, 2008....

  HH, I think SheanRenaud is pretty close to what's right. Because a guy has children with a woman, married or not, I do NOT it is fair for him to have to keep pay support to his X.
  I realize it's the way the laws are set up to keep the poor bastard under her thumb, financially But it's not the right thing do.
  Who's to say the new bastard didn't marry the X wife to upgrade his lifestyle she is living at the expense of the guy, or guys before him that are paying her child support.
  Another thought is - what if the bastard that is paying the child support finds a woman that he gets along with but he can't afford to marry her because most of his $ is going for child support even though she's remarried working and doing fine?
  I believe - Each case should be looked at objectively and common sense be applied to the outcome.
  Shamus o.

• husbandhater said on Feb 21, 2008....

  Shamus I am working two jobs. The 1st one I work about 78hrs a week at and the second I go to everyother weekend which use to be for 16hrs before recently when I cut it down to ne shift. I did marry but my husband lost his job. SO where is it fair that my ex should stop supporting my other two children and leave it on my husband?

  Where is it fair that I can't pay for a sitter for those two kids b/c some like you think that a man ending support of something he made is o.k. Child support wasn't made to keep any insividual under the thumb of the other. It was made because Uncle Sam got tired of being the mommy and daddy of the out of weddlock kids and the kids of divorcees. It figured out a way to make those responsible for such kids just that:"RESPONSIBLE"! Life is about responsibility and kids are one of them.

   Just b/c you and another individual can't get it together anymore doesn't mena the child stops existing. That is you and the individual not you and the kid. But unfourtunately this is often the case once childsupport comes into play or if the man or woman meets someone else that tickles their loins they just want to move on as if the other family didn't exist. This is in no way fair. CHILDSUPPORT get it it is for the Child. And unless were talking about Ron Perlman kind of money or a man or woman making 6figures then the other person is in noway living La Vida Loca on the money. You'd be surprised to see how fast that check dwindles down once you get it start taking the kids to the store and getting the "so called" neccessities after the childcare bill has been paid.

• SeanRenaud said on Feb 21, 2008....

  HH, obviously you need the money.  I didn't say if you needed the money that you shouldn't still receive money.  I was saying that if you no longer need the money he shouldn't still be paying.

  Example.  IF you marry R Kelly should your ex still have to pay?  This is an extreme example meant to make a point but still.

• SeanRenaud said on Feb 21, 2008....

  HH, obviously you need the money.  I didn't say if you needed the money that you shouldn't still receive money.  I was saying that if you no longer need the money he shouldn't still be paying.

  Example.  IF you marry R Kelly should your ex still have to pay?  This is an extreme example meant to make a point but still.

• husbandhater said on Feb 22, 2008....

  Sean I was addressing Shamus unless you have an alias and those that think like him. And if you read I used the Rkelly,Puffy,Ron Perlman analogy also. Were not talking about money that's just going to buy me a new house,a new Mink,a new Chincilla,or a store or something. We're talking about hundreds of dollars and sometimes just a hundred as you've seen in some women's case. 

  I've been told by many of men that I'm the exception. And I understand that. I've seen woman getting more money than me for one kid and are done up everywhich way and their kid looks like crap when they walk out the door. I have a neighbor who has two kids by two different men and both men's jobs = that of someone on Wallstreet. So she's getting very good money for each kid from each dad a month.

  The kids look o.k. that's not the issue. The issue is that she got into with another neighbor recently b/c every time she turns around the one with the two kids and the two different daddies with excellent jobs that provide is borrowing Milk,eggs,juice,bread,even detergent. And she has a boyfriend living in ther house to boot whose paying her bills,a decent job so money issn't the issue it's her spending her money which sucks so do I see what you are saying? Yes and NO.

  No only in the sense that you can't have a kid living with Puffy watching Daddy drop 40grand in one weekend and on Yachts and then go back to Mom on Monday and Mom is on Welfare or only making 40grand a year. That is too drastic of a change in Lifestyle and causes much confusion with the child. This can also cause the child to favor the wealthy parent. This is why his support went from 5,000$ a month to 30,000$ with that particular parent.

  But if the situations had of been reversed? I would be inclined to agree with you if RKelly wanted to adopt the child(ren) and claim responsibility so that should they divorce he'd still be on the hook for the kid(s). Which in his case it'd be like him spending a dollar instead of growing broke.

• iGod said on Mar 01, 2008....

  from my point of view.. he's responsible for the financial needs of his children. his ex wife's boyfriend has nothing to do with the kids.. when he and his wife did it without contraception and his children came to life, it would be part of the consequence of their act to raise their child whether they're together or they decide to be separated from each other. its his and his ex's child, not his ex's child with another guy so his children should be his dependent. besides, its his children.. if he really loves his children then whether its his responsibility to provide for the  financial needs of his children or not he would still be shouldering his children's expenses.  

• cotterall&elaineadams said on Apr 15, 2008....

  Child support should be voluntary unless the father wants to see the kids or else married the woman and she is in dire straights financially and has custody justifiably.  I would undo the whole system as it is philosophically wrong.   Why should women get primary custody?  Why isn't joint custody the ideal?  Since women are more than capable of going out and working and there is no lifetime support for anyone (that idea was thrown out with the feminist movement in the sixties) then it seems to me that she doesn't need the support.  You make your own way in this world, that is fine, pay for it yourself and don't use others for it.  Some of these men do not want to be fathers.  That is why abortion and contraception exist.  And the stuff about him not wearing a condom--maybe she didn't want him to, maybe they both agreed to use the Pill, maybe she didn't ask him to.  If she didn't ask him to, isn't she responsible for that?  Makes sense to me.  Maybe he did and she is lying.  It happens.  DNA tests have proven that some men are fathers to kids that are not theirs.
  
   Worldwide, ten percent of children are being raised in marriages by men who are not their biological fathers.  Now discounting the 'I don't know part' which is a lie because surely women remember they slept with more than one man and there is no way anyone can know who the father is instinctively or at what moment the child was created or any other of that crap people come up with other this--"Oh, he was the father or so I thought".  These women KNOW that another man could be the father.  They may have lied or covered it up.  That study doesn't refer to step families or men who have married women with kids from past marriages and relationships.
  
  
  I have read that at least twenty percent of women in their twenties try to get pregnant to deliberately trap a man.  Throw in fake pregnancies and carelessness and the rate is higher.  For certain, thirty percent of women in their twenties on average attempt to deceive men into marriage and pregnancy. Not telling them is deceitful-that information is held back for certain reasons such as knowing he wouldn't marry her and support the kid if he knew she had been sleeping around or lied about who the father was, she wants to believe he is the father to secure the marriage, she doesn't like the other guy.  Why anybody sleeps with someone they don't like is beyond me, assuming that you are over twenty-one and mature, it makes no sense.  It borders on desperation.
  
  Women ask for alimony and/or a fair distribution of assets in marriage because it is an economic partnership.  I agree with this: if you are married (THAT IS MARRIED NOT COMMON LAW) you should get half of everything.  If you are common law you should receive a settlement if you have children and share property and assets.  If you do not have children and do not share assets, income and property then you should get nothing.  You should also have to live together for at least two years without any interruptions before being able to apply (this will eliminate the shacking up and break up-get back together crowds from demanding legal protection for pointless relationships).  So if they get back on their feet (since they file for over 85 percent of divorces)  and get half of the marital property and assets or at least some alimony, why do they need child support?  Is this why they want custody?  Do they think they should get the entire house to themselves, too?  And often this is for no reason.
  
  Feminism is a great movement but should not be used to help empower idiots who use men wrongly.
  
  Edit Comment (editable for 0 seconds)
  Saving... please wait
  Another good reason to eliminate most forms of child support: the state is taking low-income fathers who face poverty and discrimination to court in order to pay themselves.  News flash: leave the guy alone: a man who has to work shifts at Burger King and the local gas station is not going to be making hundreds of thousands a year unless he decides to change his course in life, which is his business.  First he would have to get an education and some career goals with experience.  That could take five or ten years realistically.<br><br>Also: the women can work after being on welfare for two years, even part-time through work incentive programs.  The government could pay for daycare and send them to work or school instead.  A woman should be getting off welfare once the kid turns two unless she has a disability, is going to school, is mentally unfit or has health problems.  <br><br>Even eighteen-year-old teenagers can work if they are finished high school though the whole idea of not giving them birth control and condoms and then offering welfare with free apartments to get away from home and subsidized daycare and special schools wasn't my idea.  It seems to me that offers someone a good excuse to drop out of school, leave home and avoid work.   Some even think they will marry and believe their eight hundred a month is a lot of money.  I could make more painting fences and serving pizzas at a steakhouse to guests in one week if I wanted to.  Work is just better for single parents if the kid is past the age of two.<br>

  
  (cancel editing)

  cotterall&elaineadams said less than a minute ago...

  Another good reason to eliminate most forms of child support: the state is taking low-income fathers who face poverty and discrimination to court in order to pay themselves.  News flash: leave the guy alone: a man who has to work shifts at Burger King and the local gas station is not going to be making hundreds of thousands a year unless he decides to change his course in life, which is his business.  First he would have to get an education and some career goals with experience.  That could take five or ten years realistically.
  
  Also: the women can work after being on welfare for two years, even part-time through work incentive programs.  The government could pay for daycare and send them to work or school instead.  A woman should be getting off welfare once the kid turns two unless she has a disability, is going to school, is mentally unfit or has health problems. 
  
  Even eighteen-year-old teenagers can work if they are finished high school though the whole idea of not giving them birth control and condoms and then offering welfare with free apartments to get away from home and subsidized daycare and special schools wasn't my idea.  It seems to me that offers someone a good excuse to drop out of school, leave home and avoid work.   Some even think they will marry and believe their eight hundred a month is a lot of money.  I could make more painting fences and serving pizzas at a steakhouse to guests in one week if I wanted to.  Work is just better for single parents if the kid is past the age of two

• anonymous said on May 29, 2008....

  HELLO,
  MY NAME IS VIVIAN IN SEARCH OF A MAN WHO UNDERSTANDS THE MEANING OF LOVE AS TRUST AND FAITH IN EACH OTHER RATHER THAN ONE WHO SEES LOVE AS ONLY A WAY OF FUN BUT A MATURE MAN WITH NICE VISSION OF WHAT THE WORLD IS ALL ABOUT AND AFTER READING YOUR PROFILE  IN   I TOOK INTEREST IN YOU SO REPLY TO ME WITH THE BOX. (vivianjoycee@yahoo.com)

• cotterall&elaineadams said on May 29, 2008....

  The kids, yes.  Anything to do with the kids-rent, food stamps, child support, daycare and other expenses should be partly provided for by the father.  However, I see no reason for women to get huge financial settlements and permanent alimony.  If they have contributed to a business or household, they should get a fair portion of it.  If they are facing financial hardship, they should get some alimony for awhile.  I don't see why anyone should get a house and half of a man's income.  It has nothing to do with the kids.  Exceptions would be if the woman is putting up with an extremely abusive relationship, abandonment, or a man's problems with severe addiction.  Then I think it is better to give her the house and ban him from seeing the kids.

• anonymous said on Aug 06, 2008....

  Check this site out its very good --------------------------------------- AMIT P Mississippi Treatment Centers ---------------------------------------

• cotterall&elaineadams said on Aug 07, 2008....

  If women want love and trust, they must offer it in return to the appropriate and appreciative man.  They must accept financial responsibility for themselves instead of expecting provision of income in a relationship.  This isn't a primitive Islamic fundamentalist society or the 1930s.  Nothing stops a woman from working.  I am sure most people can make $1,000 to $2,000 more a month if they want to.

Comment on "Should men still be responsible for supporting their kids once the mother remarr"

Currently tagged	responsibility childsupport and children family life money fair child support single mother single parent Uncle Sam bastard children Mississippi Treatment Centers (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously