Message Boards

Topic : 12/21 One Paycheck Away

Number of Replies: 771
New Messages This Week: 0
Last Reply On:
Created on : Thursday, October 05, 2006, 04:42:21 pm
Author : DrPhilBoard1
(Original Air Date: 10/11/06) Did you know that your financial decisions could land you on the street?  Are you one paycheck away from disaster? Stacey has two children and one on the way, and she says she is close to being homeless and it's the fault of her kids’ deadbeat dads, and her parents who have cut her off. Stacey's ex-husband, Pete, says their son would be better off living with him. So, why does he refuse to pay child support? And, see what Dr. Phil provides for Stacey to help get her life back on track. Then, a hidden camera experiment shows how people really treat the homeless on the streets. And, meet a family who was living paycheck-to-paycheck when the money stopped coming in, leaving them homeless. Manuel and Heather and their four children have been living cramped in their RV for the last year, where they have no electricity and must take showers at public beaches. The difficult circumstances are taking a huge toll on their family, especially the children. How did they end up in this situation? Dr. Phil makes an important, life-changing announcement to the family. Share your thoughts here.

Find out what happpened on the show.

More December 2006 Show Boards.

As of January, 2009, this message board will become "Read Only" and will be closed to further posting. Please join the NEW Dr. Phil Community to continue your discussions, personalize your message board experience, start a blog and meet new friends.

User Mood
Peaceful

Message Emote
blank
October 16, 2006, 4:50 pm PDT

10/11 One Paycheck Away

Quote From: shannon48617

I agree with Pete. Fathers should know where their money is going.  When are the courts going to give these mothers what they deserve? Enough to support the child not their habits. It doesnt even matter to the courts how unfit the mother is they rarely take custody away. I have police reports on the mom and daughter a mile long and they still do nothing about it. I wonder if something happens to that child if I will be able to sue the courts doubt it!!!!
Hate to say this but if the courts won't do something you may have to get social services involved if you feel there is abuse and you have something to support your allegations.
 
User Mood
Peaceful

Message Emote
blank
October 16, 2006, 4:57 pm PDT

10/11 One Paycheck Away

Quote From: almaroja

 

 

WHAT ABOUT THE THIRD ONE?

What about it. She is with father number three. I am not saying she is in anyway right what I am saying is these children are here both parents need to be held accountable in taking care of these children. Looks to me like she has three dead beat dads for her children. I would say she has a severe case of finding bad men to be with. She needs some self esteem she has none.
 
User Mood
Happy

Message Emote
blank
October 16, 2006, 6:58 pm PDT

Come on!

     It seems to me she keeps finding every dead beat there is. I feel sorry for the kids in this sitiaution. I feel like they all need some counseling. As for the dead beat dad on the show how dare he act holyier  than thou. Come on if he really cared he would have done something to take care of his son. It is none of his buisness what she does with the child support. Child support is for anything that benefits that child. That includes rent, electric, gas, and food. I'm not saying it should be someones total income. Nor am I saying she should not pull her on wieght. The child is her responsiblity to.
 
User Mood
Peaceful

Message Emote
blank
October 16, 2006, 10:54 pm PDT

10/11 One Paycheck Away

Quote From: dsantifort

Generalized?   As a 1st wife also with 2 kids I am just thankful I had the dignity to not take HIS money so that my children could have provisions at both houses. I am talking about the fathers who DO want to be involved in their children's lives. Although my children are grown now it was hard to raise them with my income but had I required money from their father's household it would have taken from their provisions when in his care. I worried enough while they were not with me, were they warm , were they eating, were they being looked after etc... I did without to assure that they had all they needed in his care. I base my feelings on what I wittnessed first hand, not what I did. I am not so simple as to waste my time worrying over " my income going to another woman," I did however feel sorry for her for lacking the diginity and concern to say "don't worry about me, just make sure my kids are taken care of ." I am thankful to this day that my children ALWAYS came first, not how I could hurt or get back at their father. Can you and I not agree that there are SOME women that use this as a way to get back or hurt their ex-husbands?

I did not mean to come off as harch or judemental, if I did I am sorry. I do not know what you have gone through as you do not know what I have gone through. I have over the last 12 years gone out of my way to help my husbands ex-wife and would help her at this moment should she need me. I just feel that she should have done more with the money that was given to her over the years to provide for her children, as the money was meant for THEIR care, not hers. 

                                                           Thank You

Child support goes to the child. It includes rent, food, utilities, and clothing. In other words the basics of life. It isn't to assuage a father's guilt, or to replace the need for entertainment, and presents, those are extras.

 

I did however feel sorry for her for lacking the diginity (sic) and concern to say "don't worry about me, just make sure my kids are taken care of .

 

That statement was very puzzling. I have to ponder it for awhile.

 

 

 
User Mood
Relaxed

Message Emote
hopeful
October 17, 2006, 7:43 am PDT

10/11 One Paycheck Away

Quote From: powers009

What about it. She is with father number three. I am not saying she is in anyway right what I am saying is these children are here both parents need to be held accountable in taking care of these children. Looks to me like she has three dead beat dads for her children. I would say she has a severe case of finding bad men to be with. She needs some self esteem she has none.

 

EXCATLY MY POINT. THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE HERE ON HER SIDE, AND AGAINST THOSE MEN. BUT I, AS A WOMEN, WOULD DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO NOT GET PREGNANT AT LEAST A THIRD TIME IF I ALREADY HAVE TO DEADBEAT FATHERS. I DON'T THINK IT IS A PROBLEM TO HAVE  DIFFERENT BOYFRIENDS. WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SECOND CHANCES, BUT SHE SHOULD DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO PREVENT PREGNACIES.

BYE THE WAY, I HEARD THAT THE THIRD MAN IS NOT AROUND EITHER.  IF SHE HAD SUPPORTED HER CHILDREN ON HER OWN WITHOUT HER MOTHER'S HELP, I'M SURE SHE WOULD'VE SUFFERED DOING IT BY HERSELF, THEREFORE, SHE WOULD'VE STOPPED HAVING CHILDREN. BUT, SHE HAS NEVER LEARNED HER LESSON BECAUSE HER MOTHER HAS BEEN RESCUING  HER WITH THIS SUPPORT.

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE GOOD, AND RESPONSIBLE CHILDREN, YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM TOUGH LOVE.

ISN'T THAT RIGHT.

ALMA

 
User Mood
Stressed

Message Emote
blank
October 17, 2006, 8:38 am PDT

10/11 One Paycheck Away

Quote From: almaroja

 

 

I DON'T MEAN THAT IN A SORROWFUL MANNER. I KNOW WHAT IT IS TO WORK HARD FOR SOMEONE YOU LOVE. IT IS DONE THAT WAY, WITH LOVE, AND IT  HURTS LESS.

 

BUT MY COMMENT WAS NOT TO APPROVE THE ACTIONS OF "DEADBEAT" DADS.

 

YOU WERE MARRIED AND HAD THREE CHILDREN. AND YOU PROBABLY NEVER THOUGHT THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE DIVORSED SOMEDAY. AND ONLY THOUGHT OF HAVING YOUR OWN FAMILY. THAT IS FINE. THERE SI NOTHING WRONG WITH WANTING A FAMILY. I WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE TWO, AT LEAST.

 

THE ISSUE HERE IS ABOUT A MAN WHO IS TRYING TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT TO A MOTHER THAT ALREADY HAS A CHILD ( WITH A DEADBEAT DAD) TO SUPPORT ,THAT ACCORDING TO WHAT I HEARD, THE GRANDMOTHER IS  ALREADY CONTRIBUTING TO BECAUSE THE MOTHER DOENS'T WORK, AND A THIRD ONE ON THE WAY. THIS IS WHERE THE "CONTROL" SHOULD COME IN. THE SECOND TIME SHE GOT MARRIED. OK. GET CHILD SUPPORT FOR THAT CHILD FROM THIS FATHER, BUT WHY NOT GET THE OTHER FATHERS TOO?  THAT DOESN'T MEAN THIS MAN SHOULD SUPPORT ALL THE CHILDREN. I SAY THAT BECAUSE WHAT EVERY CASH SHE GETS FROM THIS MAN IS GOING TO GO FOR THE NEEDS OF THE OTHER CHILDREN TOO. REMEMBER SHE IS NOT WORKING. THAT MEANS SHE ISN'T CONTRIBUTING FOR THEM--WITH THE EXEPTION OF THE GRANDMOTHER. AND EVEN HER MOTHER DOESN'T WANT TO HELP HER ANYMORE. AND I BET YOU  THAT IF THE MOTHER HAD BEEN WORKING, THE CHILD SUPPORT FOR THIS MAN WOULD'VE BEEN LOWER .I'VE SEEN HOW THAT WORKS. SO,  IF SHE IS ALREADY STRUGGLING--AS THAT IS WHAT SHE IS SAYING--WITH OUT A MAN BESIDE HER FOR SUPPORT, WHY NOT CONTROL THAT? I AGREE WITH THE MAN IN THE FACT OF WANTING TO KNOW HOW THE MONEY IS GOING TO BE SPENT. 

THE REASON WHY THE MAN IS AGAINST THIS CHILDSUPPORT AMOUNT IS BECAUSE HE ISN'T DOING THAT WELL AND KNOWS THAT THE WOMEN IS NOT WORKING, BUT --IF I HEARD CORRECTLY-- SHE EVEN GOES ON VACATIONS, HAS GOOD CARS, CABLE AND MUCH MORE. PEOPLE WHO STRUGGLE WON'T DO THAT IF THEY  CAN'T DO IT.

I MYSELF AM GOING THROUGH A HARD FINACIAL SITUATION( WITHOUT KIDS TO SUPPORT), PLEASE BELEIVE ME. AND I, BY MYSELF, HAVE NOT  EVEN MADE A LOCAL TRIP.  IT WON'T WORK THAT WAY. WE ALL CHOOSE WHAT KIND OF LIFE SYLE WE WANT TO HAVE. I HAVE TWO CHOICES: ONE, ENJOY LIFE ,WITH DEPTS OR: TWO, WAIT UNTIL I GET FINANCIALLY BETTER TO ENJOY LIFE ,WITHOUT DEPTS. I CHOOSE # TWO.

 

SO WE DO HAVE TO HAVE CONTROL OVER THE THINGS WE DO.

AND IN THIS CASE, THIS WOMEN HAS TO GO BACK TO WORK TOO!

I DONT FEEL SORRY FOR HER AT ALL.

 

SORRY,

ALMA

   Life is about choices,  that is for sure.   But I don't believe that we are in total control over our choices....I believe only because of my own outlook on it,  that most choices are made with other factors at work,  the time in our lives,  the way in which we were raised,  our own personal knowledge of the choice (what we believe)  which again goes back to our upbringing.  Although I worry about my 18 year old and if he will make the right choices,  I can't help to realize that the irresponsibility of his father will have shown him a different choice,  should the occasion happen and he has to support his own (I know I worry to much) 

 

Many of my earlier choices where formed because of the way I was raised,  Kinda stand by your man,  Don't air your dirty laundry in public.............  I have since realize that I should  have left as soon as trouble started,  it wouldn't have been so ugly...........  the kids they had suffered to much in a disfuncional family.   And you are so right,  never did I ever think that I would be on my own.....But its not so bad,  The children and I will be so much better for it.  So in a way I suppose we have some control over our choices,  but I truly believe that factors in our lives condition us and often limit us on that contol.

 

  Its hard being unjudgemental,  when the pain that my own (deadbeat) has caused often blurrs my,  usually calm self.   I guess that the Man in the show should go back to court,  I know that I have a few times and know of others that have done so to,  to alter the cost of support,  often all that needs to be done is proof of income (finacial statments)   In my case  he was required to show his income for the past 3 years and then every year after,  as was I,  The judge based the amount on the set guidlines and the fact that the children had been in various sports,  We were required to pay each 1/2 of this.  He took me to court several times trying to get one of the children  (remember that we have 3)  and trying to lower his payments,  so finally worn out by the battles in court,  I agreed to a lesser amount.  I had to go through legal aid and he had a lawyer (thousands of dollars)  So it still to this day dumbfounds me that he doesn't pay child support.   I believe that  the father/mother that is required to pay child support,  should pay it.  If there income changes it's there responsiblity to file a motion with the courts.   In my case I know that he is still working,  uses his brothers names,  works under the table,  doesn't file his taxes, and moves around alot.   Just so he doesn't have to help with his own children. ........... this is why its hard to feel for the guy in the show,  but I agree that the women in the show was a bad example of a single mom.   My parents help me to when I first left,  but I've gotten on my feet,  this women just seems...........ummmmm  LOST!  lol...................yes she needs to go back to work, I don't feel sorry for either  of them.

                                       

I am glad that you posted back....I was able to put a few things in a better light.  

   

Maerten

 

 
User Mood
Peaceful

Message Emote
blank
October 17, 2006, 10:07 am PDT

10/11 One Paycheck Away

Quote From: almaroja

 

EXCATLY MY POINT. THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE HERE ON HER SIDE, AND AGAINST THOSE MEN. BUT I, AS A WOMEN, WOULD DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO NOT GET PREGNANT AT LEAST A THIRD TIME IF I ALREADY HAVE TO DEADBEAT FATHERS. I DON'T THINK IT IS A PROBLEM TO HAVE  DIFFERENT BOYFRIENDS. WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SECOND CHANCES, BUT SHE SHOULD DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO PREVENT PREGNACIES.

BYE THE WAY, I HEARD THAT THE THIRD MAN IS NOT AROUND EITHER.  IF SHE HAD SUPPORTED HER CHILDREN ON HER OWN WITHOUT HER MOTHER'S HELP, I'M SURE SHE WOULD'VE SUFFERED DOING IT BY HERSELF, THEREFORE, SHE WOULD'VE STOPPED HAVING CHILDREN. BUT, SHE HAS NEVER LEARNED HER LESSON BECAUSE HER MOTHER HAS BEEN RESCUING  HER WITH THIS SUPPORT.

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE GOOD, AND RESPONSIBLE CHILDREN, YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM TOUGH LOVE.

ISN'T THAT RIGHT.

ALMA

I agree this mother should drop her daughter on her mooching butt and let her deal with the problems of these deadbeat fathers. The only problem the mother has is she is also a grandmother and she loves those grandbabys. If I were her mother I would fight tooth and nail to take the grandbabys and make her pay me child support and go after the deadbeat dads myself. Maybe when she was looking at paying child support for her own children she would take care not to get into that situation again and at least the children would be cared for the way they deserve to be. She is taking care of the children anyway and at least this way she could get rid of the big child.
 
User Mood
Peaceful

Message Emote
quiet
October 17, 2006, 10:33 am PDT

we have to or are always forced to own our problems

Quote From: thinkoutloud

So is the child from the first marriage of more intrinsic worth than the other children? (Two of whom are older than that child, if, by your twisted logic, being born first is what somehow makes one count more.)

 

Besides, his ex-wife isn't even living off the child support AT ALL. THAT child will never do without.  She puts it all in the bank.  (If you had bothered to read my first posting you would have known that.) That's my point--child support should be the amount that is reasonable and necessary to support the child.  Not to drain the father and his family of all that they have.

 I read your entire message. Yes, you have a difficult situation of your own making.  Maybe you need to re-frame your problem and then do your best to work the  situation. You also put it out there on a message board  for comment. No child is "worth more" than another.  You also know that your comment is dodging the primary tissue in your family.

But you are grown up , well educated and knew that you were making new children with someone who had prior committments to a first family and could not in good conscience discharge his prior obligations. As you said, your husband was trying to "do the right thing" when he decided in court that he would support his very own!(wow, his very own!)children he made w/ his first wife by giving her adequate child support. Unless he kept the knowledge of his first family from you before you were married---you went into this marriage with the full knowledge ( even if you did not think entirely through the process/outcome) that his first and primary responsibility is for what he had already brought into this world. He is also (as you are) equally responsible for what you and he bring into the world anew.

 It's your logic that's flawed here and you are putting your problems on the selfish old ex-wife. You also had prior obligations before you and your husband married .Your  husband went to court and agreed to financially take care of his financial obilgation to his first family he was doing right by them--at least partially.  He cannot ever pay enough money to make up for the  destruction of these children's  family--children don't come equipped with adult minds .  They would most of the time prefer that they have their own mom and dad live with them at the same time in the same home--most children do not want part-time parents. In all but the most dire cases, it should be their right until the age of majority.

 I really think you husband should be praised for holding up his financial obligation and not encouraged to complain. 

 If he is going to hold up his end of at least the financial /as much of the other as he can because it was "the right thing to do" back before you all remarried and made a new family w/ new children, why is it not today still "the right thing to do"?  He can't now turn around and say that this is "not the right thing" just  because  he  and/or you feel  that there is not enough income to go around.  He sounds like an honorable man and he also knows every day that he and his first wife's split was intrinscally not good for his own children.

This is not a perfect analogy, but maybe one that can explain the logic behind it.  If you go out and purchase your new, first car and you totally wreck it - AND your first car is not paid off you have made a legally binding contract to pay for it fully. You even have an ethical  responsiblilty to pay  off the first , now wrecked car.  You cannot discharge your financial obligation to the car dealer/financer because you no longer have the use of the car--you still owe the debt.

You cannot stop making payments on the old car because you need or want to buy a new one now.  If you buy a 2nd new car, you are still obligated legally to finish paying off the one you wrecked. If your budget does not allow a new car before the wrecked one is paid off--you have to find extra work, cut back the budget, ride the bus--whatever, but in our  country you cannot discharge a debt simply because it has become burdensome or inconvienent to pay.

Children are not cars (it would be so much easier if they were objects instead of young humans w/ all the attendant fears, love, and hopes) so the logic is even more important that we take great care in not taking on more than we can afford.  When you planned your new family it  was surely in the back of your mind to plan an put into and good practice steps to make sure  that you can take care of any new committments because the old ones do not go away.

If you can afford additional children and want them , only then should you bring them into the world.  It is the ethical thing to do as children are not cars, but small beings that parents will have to give to for 25 or so years before the are truly indepndent and hopefull, ethically functioning members of society.  Your husband is showing his children how to be good persons by honoring his own obligations (even if it hurts a bit) and  he is teaching them that they must also  learn to honor  their own obligations and committments --first small, then larger as they grow older. He is teaching by doing,not by telling.

I can use myself as an example--I have a chronic illness that requires even w/ good insurance takes lots of our income as a couple (me and my husband) to help w/ medical care.  Although children might have been part of our wishes, I knew from my early 20s (I am 47 yrs old now) on that I could not affford without great sacrifice to have and care for even 1 child. Because it was unfair to a potential partner who might want a family, I dated men who were not desirous of having additional family. If they had children under college age I just "didn't go there". Why tempt yourself with a life you can't really handle?

 I would not have wanted a partner in my life who would not want to keep his obligations.  I was upfront  about my own problems  and my limitations  personal, financial, and professionally.
There is enough danger in daily living (we are a  country w/ few supports if something goes wrong) . For me it was unaffordable given my resources to try and have more than I could afford. Having any kids costs a lot ( I read recently that it takes an average  of 250K to get a child frome birth  thru college)--you complicate that even more when you add more family. I could not afford financially, emotionally  or in terms of stamina to live that much on the edge. But you decided as a couple that you could handle it

 I do not know your age, but one thing life teaches you in shovelfuls is that you are not entitled to everything  or anything (including a child )just because you want it and others have it.  The reality is now you have a family and to stabilize family life you may have to be willing to advance a 2nd career(yours) or do without some things. Life is a great equalizer for all of us. Once you accept that life is by it's nature unfair--you start to see thru and work your way to a way to live--my guess is there is a lot of underlying "current" in your happy marriage because you have yet to come to terms with the fact that you will always share your husband  financially and emotionally because he came from a previous marriage w/kids.

 If you all have had additional children then that means you have tnow got to learn  to live efficiently.   The books eventually  have to balance or you will destabilize all.  Start  with a good book  on the financial end of family life--Jane Bryant Quinn is one of the best writers for the average family on this subject.

  Your ex-husband's wife could be a billionaire and it would not change HIS obligations to his children and her .  Get over that. It's part of the picture because he agreed to them first.  He made a legally binding contract when wed his  first wife.  He and she discharged upon their divorce their contract--but children belong to both of them and they arranged the terms of caring for their children financially and in other ways.  He is equally responsible for his new kids, so he and you have to find a way to make things happen.

The ex-wife  could win the lottery, but if your husband is the straight up guy you say he is--he will choose to take care of his first kids' financial life and not accept his first wife's money even if she offered to let him off the hook.  His kids (and your current children) will" pay "every day just being part of a "blended" family because by its' very definition it is harder to make a life when you have obligations (personal and financial) to both households.

 It is harder for his children who will have to live w/out the relationship of a primary set of parents under one roof to interact daily.  that's gone for these kids--all of them in a way. It will be harder for yours too, as they have to share a father with divided obligations. What takes it's place can be rewarding if you will work at it. Life is not "fair" and blended families are harder--every relationship, business, anything  in life is harder to manage efficiently when you make it more complex . One wife /one husband /2 kids (no new marriages with new kids)--much less complicated and costly than what you have.

 It is by it's nature, very expensive to be divorced and remarried with kids, esp. if you have a modest income. Comes with the decision.  It's hard with a good, but modest income to afford to be a part of 2 households.  I know we can't afford to support 2 households. We did not put ourselves in that situation.

Reframe your thoughts. It's not all bad.  If  your husband's ex-his wife has done well financially, then I'm sure he couldn't be happier.  I would as a father of these first kids.  I t would  please me to know that my children might get some "extras' such as private school, remaining in their own home,  the experience  and gift of travel, money in the bank so they don't have to careen from crisis to crisis--all things he may not be able to afford  to make sure they have in their lives now that he and you have decided that  you want a family together. You know that your husband is a good and honest man who takes care of anything he puts on this Earth.  That is a good thing to know.

Whatever you think of his first wife---if she can give his children a stable home with adequate financial resources then she is in fact, helping him and you more than you know.  Poverty in America is housed mainly in homes where their is a female head of household w/ young children (no father in the home).

This has been a joint decision (2nd family) and you all have to as a couple figure out what combination of downsizing and increasing income/building wealth will keep your family going. It probably is not the ideal situation for a young mom to be at work if you have very small children, but you may ultimately need to get back into the workforce in some capacity if you cna't or don't want to downsize any further.  You have not only your own children, but all these children to consider now.




 
User Mood
Happy

Message Emote
blank
October 17, 2006, 11:40 am PDT

10/11 One Paycheck Away

Quote From: kjhamilton

 I read your entire message. Yes, you have a difficult situation of your own making.  Maybe you need to re-frame your problem and then do your best to work the  situation. You also put it out there on a message board  for comment. No child is "worth more" than another.  You also know that your comment is dodging the primary tissue in your family.

But you are grown up , well educated and knew that you were making new children with someone who had prior committments to a first family and could not in good conscience discharge his prior obligations. As you said, your husband was trying to "do the right thing" when he decided in court that he would support his very own!(wow, his very own!)children he made w/ his first wife by giving her adequate child support. Unless he kept the knowledge of his first family from you before you were married---you went into this marriage with the full knowledge ( even if you did not think entirely through the process/outcome) that his first and primary responsibility is for what he had already brought into this world. He is also (as you are) equally responsible for what you and he bring into the world anew.

 It's your logic that's flawed here and you are putting your problems on the selfish old ex-wife. You also had prior obligations before you and your husband married .Your  husband went to court and agreed to financially take care of his financial obilgation to his first family he was doing right by them--at least partially.  He cannot ever pay enough money to make up for the  destruction of these children's  family--children don't come equipped with adult minds .  They would most of the time prefer that they have their own mom and dad live with them at the same time in the same home--most children do not want part-time parents. In all but the most dire cases, it should be their right until the age of majority.

 I really think you husband should be praised for holding up his financial obligation and not encouraged to complain. 

 If he is going to hold up his end of at least the financial /as much of the other as he can because it was "the right thing to do" back before you all remarried and made a new family w/ new children, why is it not today still "the right thing to do"?  He can't now turn around and say that this is "not the right thing" just  because  he  and/or you feel  that there is not enough income to go around.  He sounds like an honorable man and he also knows every day that he and his first wife's split was intrinscally not good for his own children.

This is not a perfect analogy, but maybe one that can explain the logic behind it.  If you go out and purchase your new, first car and you totally wreck it - AND your first car is not paid off you have made a legally binding contract to pay for it fully. You even have an ethical  responsiblilty to pay  off the first , now wrecked car.  You cannot discharge your financial obligation to the car dealer/financer because you no longer have the use of the car--you still owe the debt.

You cannot stop making payments on the old car because you need or want to buy a new one now.  If you buy a 2nd new car, you are still obligated legally to finish paying off the one you wrecked. If your budget does not allow a new car before the wrecked one is paid off--you have to find extra work, cut back the budget, ride the bus--whatever, but in our  country you cannot discharge a debt simply because it has become burdensome or inconvienent to pay.

Children are not cars (it would be so much easier if they were objects instead of young humans w/ all the attendant fears, love, and hopes) so the logic is even more important that we take great care in not taking on more than we can afford.  When you planned your new family it  was surely in the back of your mind to plan an put into and good practice steps to make sure  that you can take care of any new committments because the old ones do not go away.

If you can afford additional children and want them , only then should you bring them into the world.  It is the ethical thing to do as children are not cars, but small beings that parents will have to give to for 25 or so years before the are truly indepndent and hopefull, ethically functioning members of society.  Your husband is showing his children how to be good persons by honoring his own obligations (even if it hurts a bit) and  he is teaching them that they must also  learn to honor  their own obligations and committments --first small, then larger as they grow older. He is teaching by doing,not by telling.

I can use myself as an example--I have a chronic illness that requires even w/ good insurance takes lots of our income as a couple (me and my husband) to help w/ medical care.  Although children might have been part of our wishes, I knew from my early 20s (I am 47 yrs old now) on that I could not affford without great sacrifice to have and care for even 1 child. Because it was unfair to a potential partner who might want a family, I dated men who were not desirous of having additional family. If they had children under college age I just "didn't go there". Why tempt yourself with a life you can't really handle?

 I would not have wanted a partner in my life who would not want to keep his obligations.  I was upfront  about my own problems  and my limitations  personal, financial, and professionally.
There is enough danger in daily living (we are a  country w/ few supports if something goes wrong) . For me it was unaffordable given my resources to try and have more than I could afford. Having any kids costs a lot ( I read recently that it takes an average  of 250K to get a child frome birth  thru college)--you complicate that even more when you add more family. I could not afford financially, emotionally  or in terms of stamina to live that much on the edge. But you decided as a couple that you could handle it

 I do not know your age, but one thing life teaches you in shovelfuls is that you are not entitled to everything  or anything (including a child )just because you want it and others have it.  The reality is now you have a family and to stabilize family life you may have to be willing to advance a 2nd career(yours) or do without some things. Life is a great equalizer for all of us. Once you accept that life is by it's nature unfair--you start to see thru and work your way to a way to live--my guess is there is a lot of underlying "current" in your happy marriage because you have yet to come to terms with the fact that you will always share your husband  financially and emotionally because he came from a previous marriage w/kids.

 If you all have had additional children then that means you have tnow got to learn  to live efficiently.   The books eventually  have to balance or you will destabilize all.  Start  with a good book  on the financial end of family life--Jane Bryant Quinn is one of the best writers for the average family on this subject.

  Your ex-husband's wife could be a billionaire and it would not change HIS obligations to his children and her .  Get over that. It's part of the picture because he agreed to them first.  He made a legally binding contract when wed his  first wife.  He and she discharged upon their divorce their contract--but children belong to both of them and they arranged the terms of caring for their children financially and in other ways.  He is equally responsible for his new kids, so he and you have to find a way to make things happen.

The ex-wife  could win the lottery, but if your husband is the straight up guy you say he is--he will choose to take care of his first kids' financial life and not accept his first wife's money even if she offered to let him off the hook.  His kids (and your current children) will" pay "every day just being part of a "blended" family because by its' very definition it is harder to make a life when you have obligations (personal and financial) to both households.

 It is harder for his children who will have to live w/out the relationship of a primary set of parents under one roof to interact daily.  that's gone for these kids--all of them in a way. It will be harder for yours too, as they have to share a father with divided obligations. What takes it's place can be rewarding if you will work at it. Life is not "fair" and blended families are harder--every relationship, business, anything  in life is harder to manage efficiently when you make it more complex . One wife /one husband /2 kids (no new marriages with new kids)--much less complicated and costly than what you have.

 It is by it's nature, very expensive to be divorced and remarried with kids, esp. if you have a modest income. Comes with the decision.  It's hard with a good, but modest income to afford to be a part of 2 households.  I know we can't afford to support 2 households. We did not put ourselves in that situation.

Reframe your thoughts. It's not all bad.  If  your husband's ex-his wife has done well financially, then I'm sure he couldn't be happier.  I would as a father of these first kids.  I t would  please me to know that my children might get some "extras' such as private school, remaining in their own home,  the experience  and gift of travel, money in the bank so they don't have to careen from crisis to crisis--all things he may not be able to afford  to make sure they have in their lives now that he and you have decided that  you want a family together. You know that your husband is a good and honest man who takes care of anything he puts on this Earth.  That is a good thing to know.

Whatever you think of his first wife---if she can give his children a stable home with adequate financial resources then she is in fact, helping him and you more than you know.  Poverty in America is housed mainly in homes where their is a female head of household w/ young children (no father in the home).

This has been a joint decision (2nd family) and you all have to as a couple figure out what combination of downsizing and increasing income/building wealth will keep your family going. It probably is not the ideal situation for a young mom to be at work if you have very small children, but you may ultimately need to get back into the workforce in some capacity if you cna't or don't want to downsize any further.  You have not only your own children, but all these children to consider now.




WOW! Very well said.
 
User Mood
Relaxed

Message Emote
happy
October 17, 2006, 2:45 pm PDT

10/11 One Paycheck Away

Quote From: powers009

I agree this mother should drop her daughter on her mooching butt and let her deal with the problems of these deadbeat fathers. The only problem the mother has is she is also a grandmother and she loves those grandbabys. If I were her mother I would fight tooth and nail to take the grandbabys and make her pay me child support and go after the deadbeat dads myself. Maybe when she was looking at paying child support for her own children she would take care not to get into that situation again and at least the children would be cared for the way they deserve to be. She is taking care of the children anyway and at least this way she could get rid of the big child.

 

 

RIGHT!

 
First | Prev | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | Next | Last