![Subscribe to Syndicate](https://news.mensactivism.org/misc/feed.png)
Child Support: How much is too much?
Article here. Excerpt:
'On Jan. 1, Massachusetts adopted new child-support guidelines that will likely raise the amount paid by non-custodial parents, usually fathers.
Are the new guidelines excessive and unfair, as a lawsuit charges? Or were the old guidelines too stingy? How much child support is enough? How much is too much?
Fathers & Families, a Boston-based advocacy organization, says the payments under the new guidelines are excessive. Non-custodial parents, usually fathers, who must now make increased payments could be forced to work long hours or move to a distant community to find housing they can afford.
...
"Currently the guidelines tell the minimum wage employee whose income is $16,000 that you're going to pay $4,000 in child support. It can't be done." In Boston, a minimum wage employee with that obligation might be able to rent an apartment but would have nothing left over for food, Holstein says."'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Governmental Insanity
This is a prime example of government gone crazy.
The ONLY COMPELLING INTEREST the state has in the financial support of children after divorce is the same as before the divorce and that is the bare minimum and no more to support a child should be the rule. Anything above the bare minimum has to be worked out between the parents.
No Support At All
50% custody, same school district, no support to be paid by either parent. Equal rights, right? Watch the divorce rate go down, watch the marriage rate go down, and watch single parent homes dwindle and die. The system enables women to take advantage of men to oppress the men, and uses the children as a tool. They are our children, not the governments. 50% custody, no support. A woman has just as much right to support herself as anyone else. I would only hope that as many enlightened men that read these pages on this great site would direct their anger at the culprit. Women have been used due to their inherent weakness, and men have been enslaved through women due to their instinct to procreate. We are at war. The stakes are very high, the stakes are the future of Humanity. Shall it be based on hate? Or shall it be based on reason?
I apoligize for waxing philosophical, but come on guys!
David A. DeLong
As I always say...
...men are slaves, plain and simple. It's the only way to explain the treatment we receive in society.
OK, I'm going to think about
OK, I'm going to think about this and offer anyone that can indulge in INTELLIGENT conversation to join me.
For the record, I am female, single, raising two young boys, and I receive what most people would call a hefty amount of child support.
I have been posting at this site for several weeks. I have agreed with several men's rights issues but when I don't I have never stuped to the level of insults or namecalling (look back at my post). I would appreciate the same respect.
Here is what I agree with:
-men get overlooked in DV issues
- boys get short changed with the schools and education system
- fathers need more respect in issues of child raising
-good men get screwed in the courts (but deadbeat dads get what they deserve)
-women get shorter/easier sentences for the same crimes
-women should not be rewarded for getting pregnant (no welfare)
But, what I would like to discuss is the opinion that men should only be required to pay a minimum child support, and that child support should have no relation to what they earn.
Shouldn't things be considered, like who left who and for what reason? What about the married couple that don't want their kids in daycare, so the wife stays home and then discovers that her husband has an ongoing affair? Should he be able to leave and then only pay a piddly amount. What if he doesn't want a divorce and thinks she should just accept his infidelities?
And I am sure that we all know dead-beat dads. The type of guys that father kids and then move on, and are not interested in seeing or being involved with their kids.
I know that child support is often times unfair. I know that some times it is the woman leaving and taking the man to the cleaners, but not always. Sometime a guy just walks out.
I think that the courts need to look at who did not hold up their end of the relationship and also how much money a parent should be expected to support his/her kids based on his/her income.
Comments anyone?
PS- This post is too long. I'll tell you my story in another post.
About myself
If anyone wants to comment on my post above about how much parents should pay in child support in relationship to how much they make. Here is my story.
I am adopted (I have 3 siblings-all adopted, but my brother and I are 11 months apart and share the same birth mother. I am especially close to him).
I come from a very conservative and traditional family (dad works, mom stayed home with the kids-they have a great marriage). I always wanted the same thing. I don't believe in abortion or birth control (I attended a very religious school where birth control was considered a sin. I know better now, but some how that just stuck with me)
I met my children's dad when I was 19 and he was 25. I had never had a serious boyfriend He already had a 8 year old daughter that he fathered in high school. We were friends at first so he knew everything about me, including all of my beliefs. The relationship was great. I used the 'rhythm method' for birth control, but one night, on a night that we shouldn't have,-we did, and I became pregnant. We had been together about 7 month before this.
My plan was to give the baby up for adoption. I think more babies should be given up. Anyone that knows me knows that my pet-peeve is girls that have babies that can't take care of them. Because I am adopted myself, I think I could give a baby up easily because I know how good it turns out.
I should also add that my career was taking off. I signed with a national agent (I am a dancer and also do some local TV commercials, I also had a 'second call' for a part on a soap opera. I do not watch soaps, but they pay good money)
Anyway, he changed his mind about adoption. I don't think he realized that I had been serious about it. Money was not really an issue because he has an extremely high income (I don't want to say what he does, but he makes far more than most people. Affording a child is no problem for him)
We were extremely happy, and I thought we would be together forever. So I decided to keep the baby.
A few months after our son was born, I was having trouble getting back in shape and went to the doctor and discovered that I was pregnant again!! (my kids are 11 months apart, just like me and my brother). Since we would soon have two kids we decided that our temporary rental home in my home state was not good enough and he told me to look for a home to purchase.
I think the stress of back to back pregnancies was too much for him. We split while I was pregnant with our second son. He flew in for the birth and signed the birth certificate and all. But after a few months he stopped calling and stopped making the payment on my house (that was OUR original agreement that we made between ourselves. Up to this point, we never went to court or anything).
With two babies I could not handle the stress of him not making the house payment that he agreed to pay. He never indicated that he could not afford it (he can). He was just being irresponsible.
I didn't want to take him to court, but I had to. I needed a reliable monthly payment from him. The court ordered him to pay far more than just the house payment. However, now the amount is being adjusted because his income has changed and he fathered another child with another woman (now he has 4 children with 3 women).
I am now finishing up my degree and raising my boys without their father. I would love for him to be involved. The last time he started to disappear, I called him and said, "you need to come see your boys!" (he lives in another state). He stayed with me, but was more interested in trying to have sex with me then paying attention to his kids.
If it wasn't for the court and the auto garnishing of his check, I think he would slack off in his payments, making it impossible for me to budget for the house and kids. The money is nice, but nothing can replace having a dad that spends time with his kids.
kris, this sort of stuff
is old hat here. but just to give you perspective.
just suppose:
your husband found someone new, so he left.
he took the kids with him, his right, the court gives him automatic custody based on his gender, and some serious CS from you. you protested so he told them you
molested the children. you are jailed, trial date TBD. while in jail
your CS payments mount up. YOU are now a DEADBEAT.
once you finally get freed (and that is a bid assumption since her word is breath from god
to manginas) you are freed only to be re-arrested for back CS.
you are sentenced to 6 mos. more of prison. CS continues to accumulate.
you owe so much now that they seize your passport, licenses and file
felony charges due to the amount. more time in the pokey.
and add a probation officer to the people you owe each month.
did i mention that you are on a police data base that will keep you from
EVER getting a good job again. even though you thought you beat that rap.
and guess what? you haven't got any idea where HIS children are.
they are not really yours, are they? you will figure that out while you sit
in jail. and a convicted felon has next to
NO chance of being able to ever see them again.
when eventually released you get a job, but can't even begin to start a new life.
no "decent" man will have anything to do w/ a deadbeat felon.
fees, outrageous interest, anything you can name, they tack on.
that's how people like laborers can owe hundreds of thousands of $$$
in back CS. they don't mention the leech factor (government).
you are now a servant. and the downward spiral begins.....
alchol, drugs, more prison? and now you are one of those people you despise,
w/o even trying.
it only gets worse from here. everyone doesn't have the same story.
some are not as bad, some are worse. they have a thousand ways to play their game.
you are just prey.
but we (men) all started from the same point. one where women get to assume
they will be treated at a minimum, fairly. what, 80% divorces filed for by women?
wonder why (sarcasm).
men have no such protections.
our Constitution (in the u.s.) demands we all be treated equally. we are not.
they have kidnapped our children, rewarded our x's for fraud, adultery, false
accusations of rape, molestation, you name it. she can do no wrong.
but you have a problem w/ deadbeats. i have a problem w/ judges ignoring my rights.
i have a problem w/ false accusations. i have a problem w/ women murdering and raping/molesting children and getting a slap on the wrist. i am tired of stupid
manginas giving feminist organizations BILLIONS of my tax dollars to spend just
however they feel like it. i have a problem that this cruddy government spends
7 X more $$ funding research for breast cancer than prostrate cancer, even though men and women die at almost exactly the same rate for each. i have a problem that my tax dollars are spent funding abortions where they suck the brains out of children as they are trying to be born, and now we are going to export this madness, i have a problem that single mothers get free college and all $$ that goes w/ that. and the list goes on and on and on and....
so you see, your little pity party about getting mad about this or that is
really not based on anybody persecuting you based on your gender. taking your children,
or taking your freedom, all the while demonizing you for not being able to
respond w/ enough $$$, like you just did. they steal our children and hold them for ransom.
what stuns me is that men prefer to take their own lives in such great numbers as is happening,
and not take the lives of those who caused their problems. if and when this ever starts happening, and it just might, how much you want to bet society will spin it to MORE BAD MAN, good woman crap?
and they will never report the real truth. truth has no place among the wicked.
but you are dead on about one thing. your children need their father.
>>>>end vent>>>>>
I appreciate your comments
Daveinga, I appreciate your comments. Not sure if one of those last paragraphs was directed at me or not ("so you see, your little pity party about getting mad about this or that..."). As I am not mad about anything, and I certainly do not need anyone's pity.
I can sympathize with men in the scenario you provided. I have always agreed that men need more respect and their rights upheld when it comes to child rearing and custody and support issues.
I get mad that my tax dollars go into things that I don't believe in as well. like abortion and welfare for people that cannot take care of their own kids. For the record, I have never been on any public assistance in any way. My first year of college was a scholarship and my parents are paying the rest, just like they paid for my brother and sisters'.
I hate government intrusion in people's personal lives. I always thought my ex and I could work anything out ourselves. He has never complained about paying child support. He just 'forgets' to pay (too much partying, traveling, etc) while I am trying to maintain a home for the kids. I never would have turned to the legal system if he would have just paid consistently. At the time, his paycheck was the same everymonth and he had several years on his employment contract. Not having the money was not an issue.
From reading some of the posts above, it seems like the men here NEVER believe that a parent is entitled to child support above the minimum of providing basic food and shelter REGARDLESS of how much the non-custodial parent makes and when that parent is non-custodial by choice.
I was interested in their perspective, as being a single mother I probably have a different perspective
Compelling State Interest
Kris,
The issue here the guys were addressing is what interest does the "State" have in issuing the order for child support. The only compelling state interest is to ensure that the child has basic food, medicine, shelter ... the necessities of life. The interest of the state is that the child is not endangered, ... and "god forbid" does not have to go on the gov't dole.
The State has no compelling interest in maintaining lifestyles or providing largess. Anything more than ensuring that a child is fed, clothed, receives basic medical care and housing results in gov't intrusion into people's personal lives ... the very intrusion that you claim to hate.
I don't think any of the men here feel, or are saying, that a parent should not provide anything more than the necessities ... But, they are saying that the gov't has no compelling interest in entering an order for anything more.
I think that if a 'contract'
I think that if a 'contract' was established, then I think just like any other contract it should be upheld. In a marriage or family relationship a 'contract' is established when couples talk, agree, and take action to establish a lifestyle or make a purchase (like private school for the kids, music lessons. etc).
Now I agree that men get screwed a lot, and that luxuries often need to be sacrificed in a divorce. As long as luxuries are sacrificed evenly by everyone (husband, wife, children) I'm OK with that; or if someone really bales on their end of the 'contract' then perhaps only they should do the sacrificing. But when you have the children sacrificing all of their luxuries, while a spouse hangs on to all of theirs. I don't believe that is fair.
In my case, my ex and I are still pretty good friends, so it never got real nasty. I also realize my case is a little different because he makes an extraordinary income.
We had been together for awhile and had talked about what we wanted out of life. We each had a bad experience with schools, and spoke about 'if we ever had kids' they would never set foot in a public school' and I told him I wanted to homeschool my kids.
When I became pregnant I was prepared to give the baby up for adoption. He got his mom and sister involved to convince me to keep the baby (now I am grateful for that). The reason I am telling you all the details is because, if things ever got nasty, this would all show his intent to start a family.
He and I spoke a lot about what our expectations would be if we kept the baby. We spoke about living arrangements and me homeschooling when it comes time. We were both Christians. Being unmarried and pregnant did not jive with my Christian beliefs. He did not want marriage, but he promised to provide a 'Christian home' for our family. I consider these promises as a verbal contract.
He and I never married, and we intended to have separate residences.
After the birth of my first son (and immediately pregnant again), he purchased a 3 bedroom home in my home state where me and the kids would live and he would stay when in town. There is no other reason for him to make this purchase other than his intent for me and the kids to live there. (he never sold his home, and his work in my state was temporary)
While we were waiting for some work to be done on the house, I stayed with him in his home This is the first time we ever really 'lived together' and the stress of the baby and the impending pregnancy was too much for him. He had a hard time living up to the 'Christian home' he promised me.
Little did I know that his house was the party house. Strangers were in the home at all hours. He never came to bed at night and one time when I was sleeping nude, a drunk dude walked in the room in the middle of the night. I later put a lock on the door and moved my baby into the room with me. The doorbell always rang thru out the night and there were signs of infidelity.
I think as a father, he had a responsibility to provide a safe home for us.
We never really had a fight (I did not have the energy). I just told him I was leaving . I moved into the home he purchased for me and I gave birth to our second son. His calls got fewer and fewer in between and eventually he stopped making the house payment, since the home was in his name, the finance company would not speak to me. Sometimes it would take me weeks to track him down. His excuse was that he was out of town and forgot. This happened over and over. Finally I contacted a lawyer.
Now, divorce lawyers are slime. The only good thing, was that I got the home transferred to my name and his paychecks are garnished to cover the payment. My ex never protested. We never even went to court, the lawyers sent paperwork back and forth, a judge signed it, and we were done. The two lawyers made out like bandits.
Life is good. I really have no complaints even though I did not get everything I wanted out of the original relationship. I have to take out a loan to make ends meet while I go to school. When I graduate next year I will have to work a lot to pay off my debt. I will not be able to stay home with the kids as planned and they will likely attend a public school and daycare that he and I originally agreed would not happen. He also does not visit or see the kids (his choice), so I never get a free evening or weekend. I am a mom 24/7. But I have two beautiful kids and a nice home.
My point is that I don't believe expecting him to make the house payment that he purchased for us is unreasonable, as I have pointed out, the expense does not impact his lifestyle and he is the one that broke the 'contract'. I needed the help of the legal system, just like I would if some one broke a business contract.
Waaay off Track
Kris,
I appreciate your story, but you are muddling the issue here. The subject of this thread is the Massachusettes guidelines, not whether certain contracts are enforceable.
In your case, it is highly unlikely that any enforceable contract was formed anyhow. You stated that you agreed not to give the baby up for adoption and in consideration he agreed to buy you a house. However, as the father, he could have prevented an adoption anytime. It's not YOUR baby .. it's BOTH you and the father's baby. You could not put the baby up for adoption without the father's consent, therefore, the purported contract is not valid due to lack of legal consideration. In addition, ALL 50 states have enacted "Statutes of Fraud", which provide, in part, that All contracts involving an interest in Real Estate must be in writing in order to be enforceable.
More importantly, bringing 'contracts' and 'promises' into this discussion only muddles the issue, and I do not wish to discuss contract law and all its nuances. However, I will say that doing so brings terrible precedent into this discussion. I can see women flocking to the courthouse crying that the father promised them millions of dollars to have a child, and that therefore he should be made to pay millions.
What is germane to this discussion is to what extent does the government have an interest in ensuring that a child is provided for. Beyond necessaries, there is no compelling state interest. The government has no interest is ensuring that a child enjoys a superior standard of living. A 'free people' live their lives free of government intervention to the extent possible ... and they enjoy all the benefits and suffer all the costs that freedom brings. Would you want the government ordering parents in an intact marriage to spend an ordered amount of money on their children ... and jailing parents if they do not, would you want the government to come into your house and dictate what foods you may and may not serve your children ... all under "the best interests of the child".
Cetainly it is would be great if all parents were 'Parents of the Year". But, they are not. A "free people" are free to live their lives and provide for their children as they see fit, for better or for worse, up to the point where they deprive the child of its necessaries, and therefore, a compelling state interest kicks in. Short of this compelling state interest, 'free people' live their lives and conduct family life to their own tune, without the government ordering them what and how much to do.
Either you want government interference into personal lives or you don't. Take your pick. But, with either choice there are costs that come with the deal. Freedom isn't free ... freedom isn't painless.
It Depends
How much is too much? If I was paying child support and I knew unequivicly my child was getting every penny, I would give as much as I could. Unfortunately that scenario only occurs on Bizzaro world.
Too much is when those dollars don't go to the child, instead are used for 'mom' to purchase Botox treatments. This reality is something our child support system will never acknowledge.
_________________________________________________________
'And I will pray for you.
Some day I may return.
Don't you cry for me
Beyond is where I learn.'
You are right, I am not
You are right, I am not commenting about the article, but more on the frequent posts I read at this forum that indicates that custodial parents (in most cases a woman) should never receive child support above 50% of basic necessities and that any one that does must be a gold digger. I apologize for getting off track.
To get back to the article, 25% of a person's income does seem excessive. Also your analogy about an 'intact family' having no government intrusion on how much parents should spend was good.
I try to see the difference between 'morally correct' vs. 'legally correct', and it gets a little muddy for me when I see the possibility of a parent being able to 'pull the rug out from underneath'. For instance what if a parent that has always supported a child's interest in a sport, activities, schooling or whatever and without any change in income decides he will not pay his share towards it anymore? (suppose he pays for his new wife's boob job instead) The parent would have to be a prick. But is it legally wrong? Could my ex stop paying his child support that covers my house payment forcing my home to go into foreclosure without any warning?
What about a child that has been in private school since first grade and now he is a senior. The dad's new wife convinces him that he shouldn't have to pay. Can he just stop, a week before school starts?
I am leaning towards believing that if a parent has 'implied agreement' and by 'implied agreement, I mean that he has always supported the activities in the past, and to suddenly not support it would be emotional distress on the child, then perhaps he should have a legal obligation to do so.
As you can see, a marriage or committed relationship that produces children would likely have implied agreements as most couples talk and agree about having children and lifestyle, but in the case of a one-nigh-stand that produces a child . there would most likely be no implied agreements. In that case, I am in agreement with you. It may be morally wrong for a parent not provide the most financial support he/she is able to, but the government should not get involved.
I like discussions about ethics and law and I appreciate being forced to think about issues. If anyone feels I am wrong for not clearly knowing the correct solution to when a parent suddenly pulls the plug on a 'luxury' like I have described above, please let me know.
For the record, I never lost
For the record, I never lost sight of the fact that the baby belonged to him as well as me. I am a big believer in father's rights (that's one reason why I visit this site). Although we both agreed on adoption before I ever became pregnant, I also know that people have the right to change their minds.
Just like a women that says she'll have an abortion if she gets pregnant may change her mind once it happens and her maternal instincts kick in. I NEVER made threats that I would only keep the baby if he bought a house for me...and he was NOT interested in raising the baby by himself (I suppose that is what happens if a father blocks an adoption-as you pointed out he had every right to do). I know you never came out and accused me of these things, but some one may interpret it that way.
He wanted us to be a family. I held up my end the deal. It is too bad that he is not around, but he is providing financially as promised.
Implied Agreements
Kris,
I understand what you are saying. I don't have any easy answers, however, discussing what is the appropriate amount of child support begs the question of why a person should pay court ordered child support in the first place.
I will address your specific query below, but for now I digress.
Truly, this whole issue arises because of the "system" we have in place. In divorce, women are invariably granted custody and the fathers designated non-custodial ... even though nearly 100% of divorces with children involved are initiated by women. Unmarried women are enticed to have children out of wedlock, by and large, through gov't promises of support through welfare, food stamps, WIC, child care funds, AND court ordered child support automatically entered against men.
Our system, our society, has created the phenomenom of the fatherless child.
Get rid of this atrocious system and the issues largely go away. The children belong to the parents ... not the state. Child support orders should not be entered unless a parent wilfully fails to provide at least the reasonably basic necessities of the child. Government interference into private life is only justified by a showing of a compelling interest. The state should not get involved until it has a compelling interest to do so.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
I enjoy our discussion, but I cannot devote my time here to discussing nuances of contract law, express or implied, or the enforceability of gratuitous promises. It detracts from the discussion and introduces endless variances. However, I certainly agree that where necessary and proper (whatever that means) a NCP may be ordered to pay child support in excess of his 1/2 share of basic necessities. Let's take a look at "implied agreements" for a bit:
Ex. #1: Mr. Von Nostrum, a multi-millionaire wealthy industrialist, made an "implied agreement" to his longtime girlfriend (the mother of his children)and to his children, that he would provide a nice home in the suburbs. After the mother cranked out two kids, out of nowhere Mr. Von Nostrum decided he hated family life and was leaving for good to live the George Hamilton lifestyle in Aruba. Ignoring the pleading tears from the mother and children, he then abandoned the children and set sail for tropical paradise with his gorgeous and buxom young secretary.
Result: If I was the judge deciding the appropriate amount of child support due to his abandonment of his children, I would enter an order for an amount that would well exceed simply providing gruel and porrige for the children ... but definitely not for million$.
Ex. #2 Mr. Jones, a $150,000/yr employee of ABC co., made an "implied agreement" to his longtime girlfriend (the mother of his children) and to his children that he enjoyed family life and would work his ass off so he would provide a nice home in the suburbs. After the mother cranked out two kids, out of nowhere the mother won $10,000,000 in the state lottery and decided that she no longer liked Mr. Jones and she wanted be be with Mr. Well Hung ... the studly long haired yoga instructor she met at the gym and that they would take to the road and become groupies of a heavy metal rock band.
Result: Even if Mr. Jones agreed that the mother should be the custodial parent, I would enter an order requiring Mr. Jones to pay 1/2 of the basic essential costs of raising a child.
I understand my examples are off the wall ... however, they both contain the exact "implied agreement" at the time the agreement was made, and the examples serve to demonstrate the problem of discussing "implied agreements' in a vacuum. The possibilities are endless ... what is the "right" and "just" result depends on the totality of the circumstances ... at least in my belief.
All that said, you have two sons now and one day they shall marry and/or have children. I wish you and your family the best. However, statistically speaking, there is a greater than 80% chance that at least one will end up divorced and fighting custody and/or child support issues. Do you wish your sons to be trapped in our system, do you want the Massachusettes child support guidelines to be applied to them?
We agree more than you think
Tor,
I realize this discussion is getting long, this will probably be my last post.
I do NOT agree with the Massachusetts ruling...And I am seeing (and agreeing) with your point about keeping the government out of automatic and excessive child support without looking into the situation.
I think you and I are in agreement, based on the scenarios you supplied, that sometimes the situation needs to be considered. As you acknowledged that you would order a multi-millionaire to pay more than 50% of the basics.
Your first scenario was not too far off of my situation. My ex is a **edited**. We were in a committed relationship for two years and produced two children. I believe he wanted family life, but then later decided that it wasn't for him.
I agree that women should not be encouraged to have children that they cannot provide for. I hate the welfare system (I have never been on any form of public assistance) I am an advocate for adoption. I think men and women need to be more careful about who they sleep with, getting pregnant, and adoption should be considered more often.
I spoke to a teenage welfare mom who told me that I am 'just lucky' because the father of my children happens to be rich and that I would be on welfare too if it wasn't for that. I don't think so! Most things in life (like having children) don't 'just happen' . We all make choices that lead up to the consequences. We choose who will be the parent of our children. We have the options of saying 'no' to sex, using birth control, and adoption. Subjecting a child to 'welfare life' is a decision a parent makes (usually the mother). I would NEVER make that choice. Even though my situation did not turn out exactly as planned (I wanted my kids to be raised with both parents, but he doesn't come around much) I still upped my chances of a good life by having a relationship with a good person that can provide financially (my ex may not be the best father, but he is a descent person).
Back to the Massachusetts ruling. Expecting a person that makes $16000 to pay $4000 in support is absurd. I assume in many cases the mother does not work and receives welfare. I don't know what the answer is for the welfare system, but we should not be encouraging single parenthood. Perhaps the mothers should work and be required to provide their 50% of the child's basic needs before they receive any handouts.
Just to put things in perspective, I had 2 children and probably recieved about 10% of his income in support. Now that he is retired (in his thirties) and has fathered another child, my amount is being significanly reduced. Like many guys in his profession that never learn to manage money, I will not be surprised if he goes bankrupt (too much partying, booze, and women) . He may not even be able to support the kids up to their 18th birthday. I am preparing for that by finishing my college degree and planning a career.
**this post has been edited to protect Identity