lf1

Profiting from child custody payments

Many, many sociopaths fight for custody of their children. Sociopaths are incapable of loving anyone, including their children. So why do they want the kids?

One big reason is to torment the other parent by depriving them of the kids.

Another reason is to make money. If the sociopath is the custodial parent, the other parent will have to pay up until the children are 18, or even older, for kids who go to college.

Child support payments are often determined by the courts. New research shows that the formulas courts use to set the support payments may overestimate the cost of raising a child by 200% to 400%. See this video produced by DivorceCorp.

Shocking facts on the child support system exposed by breakthrough study, on Youtube.com.

 

 



3 Comments on "Profiting from child custody payments"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. missymooz says:

    I’m in Australia so not sure how ours is done. But I think this is a little bit flawed as the expenses do go up even with one child!!! Nappies, formula, bottles (not everyone can breastfeed) furniture, clothing, detergents etc! Let alone when 2 or more! I have 4 & I have to pay higher rent due to needing a bigger house. What about thinking about no income coming in as its not worth the single parent going to work with child care costs being what they are? Or the fact that the parent wants to bring the child up!
    Anyway, I’m not sure that there will ever be a perfect system😞
    But I wish there were consequences for non payers in Australia, as my spath does not pay & we struggle a lot & it is the children who suffer as I cannot afford to do all the fun things their friends are doing 😞 & I am working ft just to scrape by.



    Report this comment

  2. aintgonnatakeitnomore says:

    I listened to the other vid, not sure if this is same one, but its the same ppl…Divorce Corp. I wish i lived in their world! Apts and house too big for your family? All my friends and I had to move once we had kids. Why have more than a 1 bdrm if you’re just a couple? And then as kids were added we all had to move to even bigger places.
    Listen, if it were just me, no kids, I’d live in a studio or my mom’s basement. With kids you have to make a home. Dont give me the crap about you’ve already got the space anyway so throw a kid in it, blammo. And I’ll tell you, my friends and I didnt have 2 vehicles when we were starting out. I was the lucky one cuz my hubby worked nites, so I had a car to use!
    Obviously, noncustodial dads wrote this movie script. Kids are HELLA expensive — and we live extremely simply and poor. They’re still a constant drain of money for me. Boyfriends I’ve dated who’ve never had custody are astounded how much money pours out of my pocket for my kids. As I said, Im not a yuppie mom. My kids get dollar burgers at McDs if we eat out, we buy clothes ONLY at goodwill, I found old crappy tennis rackets at a garage sale and they were thrilled. They try very hard to earn money cuz I just dont have it for their wants and desires.
    I still wear holey socks and underwear, and so do they at times. My 9yo was crying cuz her pants were so tight last week. I cudnt buy her any other ones. Finally I was able to get to my very distant storage unit and some bigger ones were in there.
    This movie in ridiculous in so many aspects! One more way; when ppl have kids they dont spend anymore on food??? Have you ever fed children?? My kids eat more than adults most days. They are not fat at all. We dont eat steak and shrimp. I only buy hamburger and chicken thighs. no junkfood or pop. To claim A) that we ate out alot before kids and B) then we just stayed home and that made up for the enormous amt of food children eat, are both preposterous claims.
    The whole movie seems to have been funded by a Dads’ Rights group who dont want pay child support.
    My kids never have what all they need and we live very poor evenso. Irritating to be told Im being greedy to want their father to pay accurate expenses of having kids :0



    Report this comment

  3. jm_short says:

    This man’s concepts are terribly flawed!

    1. A single parent does not need to continue paying the price of family housing unless they are the custodial parent. The fact that the parent with custody remains in the home does not negate the difference in cost to them if they did not have a child. And the room for the child could become income producing if the single parent chooses to remain in the home, but had no child to support. They could get a roommate who shouldered some of the expenses, driving down their costs. They lose that income by the child living in that home.

    2. Infants DO NOT EAT the same food their parents do, so the assumption that less food will be thrown away with a baby in the home is totally absurd.

    3. The costs of running a car to care for the child’s needs should be shouldered by both parents. It’s not the ridiculous cost of the child sitting in the seat of the car not costing anything extra. It’s the portion of the car expense attributable to the child’s needs that matters. Are they driven to school. Is the car used for shopping? How does the child get to the doctor? His “marginal cost to add a second passenger” concept is bunk.

    4. What about day care for working parents? What about school and medical expenses?

    My son is now 34 years old. My living expenses are currently one third of what they were when my son lived in my house. The way of looking at child support used in this study is simply ridiculous. And BTW- the courts ordered my ex to pay a whopping big $30 per week in support. It wouldn’t even pay for a box of diapers, and he failed to pay it. Thank God that deadbeats can be put in jail today!



    Report this comment

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.