Posted by Jim on August 27, 2001 at 09:59:18:
How can the courts state they have the best interest of the child foremost when they allow a custodial parent to crucify a noncustodial parent due to being vendicitive. My ex and I made a verbal agreement on child support as each of our children graduated from high school. I now know what a huge mistake that was. Being nieve at the time, I thought my signed receipts would hold up in court if we ever had a problem. As you are well aware, they didn't. The court didn't even take them into consideration. All the extra's I paid which were not court ordered like extra curricular activities, car insurance, pocket money for the kids, extra money given to the ex when she cried poverty doesn't matter. Does the court really think that once a noncustodial parent is legally screwed that it will not effect the relationship between that parent and the child. In theory it would be great, in reality it's not true. When the child keeps saying mom says you don't pay child support so mom said you have to buy me all my school schools and supplies. The support is taken directly out of pay and you have been totally financially wiped out, I'm now thousands delinquent in child support and don't have a dime left over for coffee every day. My child thinks I'm lying, I'm told I can't discuss anything with her, in other words, can't defend myself. My child is angry with me because I can't splurge on her like I use to and now there is a problem building up between us because of the lies and deceit of her mother. I just have a hard time seeing how this was in my daughter's best interest. Just needed to vent about our wonderful and fair judicial system. Thanks