Missouri child-support law change touches many issues

Responder wrote:

<quoted text>
Now there is some interesting social science! Frankly, as someone who has done a lot of hiring and firing, I don't think I have ever been impressed by anyone - college grad or not - whose job history was working at Sonic.
I supported my son while he went to college. The rule was, if you go to school full time, no job, studying is more important. No full-time college, and you must work. It took only one month of washing dishes in a restaurant for my son to know which was more important and he went to school full-time.
So, sorry, SECOND WIVES, I do not meet your "illusions" of hardship equating to success for my children. I took care of them, and full time college meant they had my full support. It worked too.
Glad to know "your husband's daughter," is past 21 and the conflict is over for you. She should unload the baggage of a father that dumped her for a second family and legally disown him. Send me her e-mail, maybe I can set her up with a pro bono lawyer to do that for her. I am sure once she takes an action to legally rlieve herself of the nuisance of her father's second family, her life will move in a much more positive direction.

Again...you made my point...you set rules for your son. My husband wasn't allowed to do that...don't you get that? Open your mind...he wasn't allowed to parent or set guidelines for his child....this is what this is all about. He didn't want to relieve himself of the obligation, in fact he was going to continue to pay for her school if she followed some of his requirements...just like the requirements you were allowed to set for your child. I think you're the one who is angry and bitter...

Mom of 3 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again...you made my point...you set rules for your son. My husband wasn't allowed to do that...don't you get that? Open your mind...he wasn't allowed to parent or set guidelines for his child....this is what this is all about. He didn't want to relieve himself of the obligation, in fact he was going to continue to pay for her school if she followed some of his requirements...just like the requirements you were allowed to set for your child. I think you're the one who is angry and bitter...

No, 2nd Wife, not angry, advocacy. I know that child support makes a difference in the lives of people. I cannot relate to people who fantasize about their ex-wives living high on the hog because of child support. I find that to be irrational thinking.

That your husband cannot have control over the family he divorced is too bad. When a man is absent he is going to miss a few milestones in the lives of his children, and lose some control. Unfortunately, his ex-wife does not have an opportunity to consult him on the decisions she makes for family minus dad. He is what is known as an absent father, meaning he is really quite clueless as to the complete picture.

What role does your husband think he has played in his child's dysfunction? None, I would venture to guess. Read up, 2nd Wife, children of divorced parents whose absent parent remarries and begins a second family feel left behind.

So what rights, what control in parenting did you husband win over his first family by changing the child support law - I remeind you, he said you and he worked closely with the lame duck representative to make that happen. What did control over his first family did he win with that?

Mom of 3 wrote:

<quoted text>`
Again...you are generalizing a group of people and don't know what you're talking about. I'm not going to comment on your insults to my intelligence...not worth it and a waste of my breath. As for being a 2nd wife...I'm not, I'm the first. Again...you don't know what you're talking about. She is "his" daughter, my step-daughter and as a matter of fact, I love her very much, this has nothing to do with that. Again...this statute has nothing to do with how much you love your child. Again, not saying that "Sheila" isn't worthy...just not relevant to this arguement.

Whatever this scenario implies is irrelevant - there is a "first family," and the child obviously lives with a "first" mom.

Only by your use of language that belies your sentiments would I be so bold as to suggest the affection you claim for "his daughter" is less than you express. Sorry, but these dynamics are self-explanatory.

Mom of 3 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again...you made my point...you set rules for your son. My husband wasn't allowed to do that...don't you get that? Open your mind...he wasn't allowed to parent or set guidelines for his child....this is what this is all about. He didn't want to relieve himself of the obligation, in fact he was going to continue to pay for her school if she followed some of his requirements...just like the requirements you were allowed to set for your child. I think you're the one who is angry and bitter...

I will put out too that I gave my son choices, not rules. The choices he had were attached to conditions. Big difference here. Making rules to bind a person within is about control; giving them choices is about freedom.

Claerly we have very different parenting styles Stepmom. Yours are about "control," and mine are about positive outcomes, even if it means giving up control.

Responder wrote:

<quoted text>
I will put out too that I gave my son choices, not rules. The choices he had were attached to conditions. Big difference here. Making rules to bind a person within is about control; giving them choices is about freedom.

I'll use your rhetoric...my husband wasn't allowed to give his daughter, "choices." He didn't have that option!!!!!!! Were you trying to control your son by giving him choices?

Mom of 3 wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll use your rhetoric...my husband wasn't allowed to give his daughter, "choices." He didn't have that option!!!!!!! Were you trying to control your son by giving him choices?

Call it rhetoric if you like, but the words carry meaning. Your repeated use of the word "control," speaks volumes. When you use it connection with the child the way that you both have, it is informative.

You are getting mad at me because you creted a situation that went bad. That was not enough, so you took it to a higher level and got some lame duck representative to pass a piece of legislation that impacted people with real needs adversely. I hope that makes you feel better about your own situation.

I am going to take out a newspaper ad and print the statute your husband was so kind as to share with us.

I ask again, what control did you and your husband gain in changing a law that adversely impacts many people?

The good thing is, if your husband divorces you, you will be one of those people adversely impacted.

Responder wrote:

<quoted text>
Call it rhetoric if you like, but the words carry meaning. Your repeated use of the word "control," speaks volumes. When you use it connection with the child the way that you both have, it is informative.
You are getting mad at me because you creted a situation that went bad. That was not enough, so you took it to a higher level and got some lame duck representative to pass a piece of legislation that impacted people with real needs adversely. I hope that makes you feel better about your own situation.

It makes me feel better! You had the choice to help your son. Us,'2nd wives', and our husbands don't have the choice. And yes, the parent(s) should have control, not the state! It would be like the government saying that the state school wasn't good enough for your child, so we will make you send your child to Harvard and don't forget to write that check. You see, that is not their decision to make. Just as it is not their decision to make whether a parent pays for education when a married couple does not. And no, my daughter did not have a job at Sonic. She worked within her field of study which gave her a boost with job experience. I do not agree with your statement of when a man divorces the 'first family.' You have lumped them all in one group, even if the wife has cheated, or she asked for the divorce. So the impact that they made was a step in the RIGHT direction. Giving parents the CHOICE.

I need some advice. My husband's child support was suspended when his ex-wife moved out of the country with his child. She came back a couple of years later and my husband started paying the child support again, even though there was no court order. Now she is demanding he pay the child support while his child is in college. Should he go ahead and pay it without an order or drop it? Any help would be appreciated.

Responder wrote:

I am going to take out a newspaper ad and print the statute your husband was so kind as to share with us.

Please Do! We need more people on our side! Thanks for the free advertising!

Responder wrote:

I ask again, what control did you and your husband gain in changing a law that adversely impacts many people?
The good thing is, if your husband divorces you, you will be one of those people adversely impacted.

Why do you keep attacking me personally? Bitter much? My husband has never gotten a divorce before, this is the first and only marriage for both of us. We have been together for over 14 years, but might I add, what if we had been married before? Why would that be either of our faults? Where do you get off labeling people as 2nd wives and acting like you know them? How do you know if a spouse cheated or went crazy or whatever circumstance happened to result in the divorce...why is it the dad's fault? What if your son were to marry a woman who after a few years, decided to cheat and run off and daily bash your son to his children? Would you feel differently then or would you lump him together with the rest of us. Would he deserve to get remarried...would that new wife woman who loved his children like her own, be immediately labled as the horrible second wife in your book? I'm sorry you've had a tough time of it, but please understand that each family has their own story and mine isn't yours. We have 3 children together and have worked together to change a statute because we believe it's the right thing to do.

Susan in Texas wrote:

<quoted text>
It makes me feel better! You had the choice to help your son. Us,'2nd wives', and our husbands don't have the choice. And yes, the parent(s) should have control, not the state! It would be like the government saying that the state school wasn't good enough for your child, so we will make you send your child to Harvard and don't forget to write that check. You see, that is not their decision to make. Just as it is not their decision to make whether a parent pays for education when a married couple does not. And no, my daughter did not have a job at Sonic. She worked within her field of study which gave her a boost with job experience. I do not agree with your statement of when a man divorces the 'first family.' You have lumped them all in one group, even if the wife has cheated, or she asked for the divorce. So the impact that they made was a step in the RIGHT direction. Giving parents the CHOICE.

Who cares if she cheated? Is it about cheating, or child support?

Mom of 3 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you keep attacking me personally? Bitter much? My husband has never gotten a divorce before, this is the first and only marriage for both of us. We have been together for over 14 years, but might I add, what if we had been married before? Why would that be either of our faults? Where do you get off labeling people as 2nd wives and acting like you know them? How do you know if a spouse cheated or went crazy or whatever circumstance happened to result in the divorce...why is it the dad's fault? What if your son were to marry a woman who after a few years, decided to cheat and run off and daily bash your son to his children? Would you feel differently then or would you lump him together with the rest of us. Would he deserve to get remarried...would that new wife woman who loved his children like her own, be immediately labled as the horrible second wife in your book? I'm sorry you've had a tough time of it, but please understand that each family has their own story and mine isn't yours. We have 3 children together and have worked together to change a statute because we believe it's the right thing to do.

I am not attacking you personally, only saying that the very personal information you shared with the public leads me to a conclusion. There are some dynamics going on that have nothing to do with changing the law - you shared those, and if that causes you to have the sense that I know you, it is because you shared those personal details.

My focus here is that a lame duck representative who is still in office changed a law in a way that adversely affects the families subjected to that law. I think that voters should know - if it helps or hurts him, so be it.

Soldiers Wife wrote:

I need some advice. My husband's child support was suspended when his ex-wife moved out of the country with his child. She came back a couple of years later and my husband started paying the child support again, even though there was no court order. Now she is demanding he pay the child support while his child is in college. Should he go ahead and pay it without an order or drop it? Any help would be appreciated.

I consult attorneys on any legal matter. I never presume to know, take it straight to the people who are the experts and can offer appropriate guidance.

Mom of 3 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you keep attacking me personally? Bitter much? My husband has never gotten a divorce before, this is the first and only marriage for both of us. We have been together for over 14 years, but might I add, what if we had been married before? Why would that be either of our faults? Where do you get off labeling people as 2nd wives and acting like you know them? How do you know if a spouse cheated or went crazy or whatever circumstance happened to result in the divorce...why is it the dad's fault? What if your son were to marry a woman who after a few years, decided to cheat and run off and daily bash your son to his children? Would you feel differently then or would you lump him together with the rest of us. Would he deserve to get remarried...would that new wife woman who loved his children like her own, be immediately labled as the horrible second wife in your book? I'm sorry you've had a tough time of it, but please understand that each family has their own story and mine isn't yours. We have 3 children together and have worked together to change a statute because we believe it's the right thing to do.

I have made no judgments about what led to the dynamics you described. Just the facts - there is a child - based on your description, a hurt and angry child - an absent father who has a second family. A second wife, significant other, live in or whatever who refers to the child as "my husband's daughter."

Two people whose own rhetoric is definitive of and uses the word "control." I merely beg to differ with your parenting style.

On the matter of working to change the child support law, I ask again - how did it empower you to have more control over your "husband's child"? It's just a question. I don't see where who cheated on whom is relevant - although I do think that if you one day find yourself the "beneficiary" of the product of your own "work" that it would be very interesting to hear you discuss that point at that time. Do keep me updated on that aspect.

Mom of 3 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you keep attacking me personally? Bitter much? My husband has never gotten a divorce before, this is the first and only marriage for both of us. We have been together for over 14 years, but might I add, what if we had been married before? Why would that be either of our faults? Where do you get off labeling people as 2nd wives and acting like you know them? How do you know if a spouse cheated or went crazy or whatever circumstance happened to result in the divorce...why is it the dad's fault? What if your son were to marry a woman who after a few years, decided to cheat and run off and daily bash your son to his children? Would you feel differently then or would you lump him together with the rest of us. Would he deserve to get remarried...would that new wife woman who loved his children like her own, be immediately labled as the horrible second wife in your book? I'm sorry you've had a tough time of it, but please understand that each family has their own story and mine isn't yours. We have 3 children together and have worked together to change a statute because we believe it's the right thing to do.

Be real. You worked to change a statute because you were PO'd about paying child support and to show you had the "connection" to do it. I hope it serves you well. My only point is that it does not serve many, many others well.

Responder wrote:

<quoted text>
Who cares if she cheated? Is it about cheating, or child support?

You implied that the husband is the instigator...
"That your husband cannot have control over the family That your husband cannot have control over the family he divorced is too bad. When a man is absent he is going to miss a few milestones in the lives of his children, and lose some control. Unfortunately, his ex-wife does not have an opportunity to consult him on the decisions she makes for family minus dad. He is what is known as an absent father, meaning he is really quite clueless as to the complete picture.
divorced is too bad. When a man is absent he is going to miss a few milestones in the lives of his children, and lose some control. Unfortunately, his ex-wife does not have an opportunity to consult him on the decisions she makes for family minus dad. He is what is known as an absent father, meaning he is really quite clueless as to the complete picture." That's why it is important, for people like yourself who generalizations. Would you feel the same about NCPs if your son got married, had a child, and then his spouse cheated on him. Would you say that "he divorced his family"

Responder wrote:

Child support is not about anything except keeping the lights on and keeping the family as close as possible during tough times. Those tough times go right up and into college, and to ask a father to contribute to his child's opportunity is not asking too much. Asking for child support to age 21 for children who are not disabled and who attend college is not asking too much. It is helping to ensure the future of our children - and our country - you should know this, Fighting Father.
To enact legislation that takes away a young person's opportunity takes away my vote for that candidate. I know you and the Reprsentative worke hard, and I don't care what Oklahoma does, only what MO does.
Also, MR and autistic children have no place to go after HS - where they are required to be in the same classrooms as children without those disabilities. You think they're going to go to college, or DeVry? Get real. This law was about a bunch of pitty potters, crying about having to pay for their children.
I am going to work very hard to ensure that this Rep does not get re-elected, and that this law is reversed. In fact, I am going to make it my life's work for the rest of my life. Voting is a powerful tool, and I hope to help turn every woman in MO's vote away from this man's future re-election.
I cannot think of anything more pathetic than men who cry about child support. Let's just call the Rep's bill the Pathetic Bill. For that, he still sits on the child support pitty pot ofthe year award.
Stay safe, Fighting Father, keep your head down and your morale up. God Bless America, and let's hear those freedom bells ring.

Wow, your comments are so out of line. I love my children very much and don't mind paying for support, but when the spouse abuses the system that's where I have a problem. The age of 21 is more than appropriate. I too went to college and did live as one of those 'poor college students'. Working your way through school can be done. I was an all american athlete, went to school full time, and worked about 15-20 hours a week. I kept up my grades and really supported myself - it can be done. I support my children today emotionally, but also want to make sure that they become responsible adults. Adults that should begin taking steps away from the parental household and start living lives on their own. At 21 I will assist them with acquiring appropriate student loans so they can complete college. That is reality. I like many other NCP's support Brian Baker and would like to take steps to reduce support even further to age 18.

Consider this: At age 16 you can drive, at age 18 you can vote, get an abortion, get married, or enlist in the military. At age 18 Social Security benefits stop where there is a deceased parent, and lastly at age 21 you can drink.

Why Responder would support continue past 21? Without college a child is automatically emancipated at age 18.

My reality:
My ex makes 24,000/year. She just bought our daughter a $3,000 laptop for her high school graduation. She'll only get to use it for a short period of time before she goes to Spain...
She wouldn't be able to afford this computer without dipping into the child support! And yes, she is living 'high on the hog' because of the child support. She claims that she understands and takes into account all the extras that she bills me for every month (outside of the mandated support) and makes 'wise financial decisions'...I beg to differ. She complains that the $1750/mo., 75% of college and 75% of medical doesn't go as far as you think. Boy, I sure hope she has enough left over for the electricity bill.