Buddy of my sho did! His ex was ordered to pay him, she never paid a dime now she and her new husbands both on disability. And now he's paying that cheating biotch smh. (And He had the best attorney money could buy in mobile)

it's very unfair. Like I said their should be cap on CS. My kid is no better nor does his raising cost more than the man child who's father makes $10 an hour. If a woman is gonna bitch about how CS isn't enough then she should let the father raise him and I'm sure the man won't ask for a dime.

Surely you don't think tiger woods (for example) should owe the same as a $10/hr guy? Do you?

I got a buddy that has custody of his 2 kids. His ex wife was ordered to pay CS she's never paid a dime and the court won't even have her locked up, but if it was a man his ass would be sitting behind bars. Like I said judges are some of the crooked sob alive

yes I do when it comes to CS. Why should he have to pay more than the man making $10 an hour

Because the child deserves it. He created the child. This doesn't seem difficult to me

hmmmmm easy for a person to say that has never been in this situation before. So your comment is irrelevant

yes I do when it comes to CS. Why should he have to pay more than the man making $10 an hour

The idea of a non-working custodial parent floors me.

Dude what are you talking about. I don't doubt the courts are biased toward women. But i think the idea is to "make the kids whole best as possible". Rich people spend more on their kids. Poor people spend less. The idea is to keep the money the kids are receiving the same amount of money had their parents not divorced. So, if you and the missus did not get divorced, presumably you would have steadily increased the amount you spent on your kids through the years as your income increased. Thus, the courts are trying to replicate this increased benefit to the kids as you steadily improve your lot in life.

Dude what are you talking about. I don't doubt the courts are biased toward women. But i think the idea is to "make the kids whole best as possible". Rich people spend more on their kids. Poor people spend less. The idea is to keep the money the kids are receiving the same amount of money had their parents not divorced. So, if you and the missus did not get divorced, presumably you would have steadily increased the amount you spent on your kids through the years as your income increased. Thus, the courts are trying to replicate this increased benefit to the kids as you steadily improve your lot in life. See when it comes to the rich don't think for once that the ex wife doesn't have just as much if not more than the ex husband bc in their divorce you can bet she took half of what they had. So why should the man pay more than a father who makes $10 an hour when the mother can already buy whatever she wants bc she's rich