Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
That sir would be controlling and probably more controlling than when the couple were co-habitating. That is my sisters case. She could not do a thing without prior approval yet she was the one worth over a million dollars when it came to HER business. Her soon to be X was way over the line in controlling.
|
Yes but when the couple was co-habitating, they were not under a court ordered action. That is the significant difference.
If the court orders either party to pay money for a specific purpose, I feel that the court has the right and responsibility to ensure that the money is used for that purpose. The court does not seem to have any problems ensuring that the money was paid, but seems reluctant to ensure that it is used properly.
I am sure we have all heard stories of women taking child support and spending the money on themselves and buying the children the minimum.
.
About 30 years ago, one of my troops was getting divorced from his wife. She was asking $600.00 per month child support for one child. My troop was, at the time, an E-4 bringing home around $1,000 per month total.
He tried to challenge that he was supposed to pay for 1/2 of the upkeep of his child. He was able to provide for himself, his wife and his son on $1,000 per month. How can she claim that she needs $1,200 per month just to take care of his son? The reason is that since the State did not have alimony, she wanted "child support" to be her support. He lost the challenge, and could not get any information on what she was spending on his child and what she was using for her (and her soon to be live in boyfriend).
The system is very unfair and unbalanced. I saw way too many of my troops get screwed over.
