Almalieque wrote:
For me, that would depend on the situation. I can see the argument for that if "what the child is accustomed to" is similar to the cost of living of the area.
That's a nearly impossible standard to manage though. What area? The one she was living in prior to the divorce? The one the father is living in now? The one the mother and child are living in now? I'm just not getting why you seem to want to apply some additional and unnecessary "standard" to this.
Quote:
If the wife was the one who wanted the daughter to have horseback riding lessons, I don't think the father should be forced to continue paying for the lessons.
Why not? The father was willing to pay for the daughters lessons when he was married to her mother, but not now that they're divorced? Why? What changed to make that happen? On what planet do you think that makes a lick of sense and is anything more than someone punishing the child for the actions of the other parent?
Sorry. I disagree with you there.
Quote:
However, if the daughter had a horseback riding scholarship and the lessons were crucial for her advancement, then I would reconsider it.
You're kidding, right? That's yet another impossible standard to manage. How the hell is anyone going to determine this?
Quote:
The point being that I could spoil my children everyday for 10 years, giving them whatever they wanted. I can then wake up one day and donate everything to charity and live life without the luxuries and that would not only be legal, but applauded by many.
And if that decision happens to coincide with a divorce settlement, I'd strongly suspect that you're doing it to be an *** and not out of some kind of altruism.
Quote:
So, it doesn't make sense for the court to force your children to have luxuries during a divorce, but not during a marriage.
It does, however, make sense for the court to do what it can to prevent someone from using the divorce as an excuse to radically reduce the amount of money he provides for his children. I actually kinda agree with you to a point that the court shouldn't arbitrarily set some amount based on your earnings, but it should be based on what you were spending before. So if you were a super frugal person while married the court should not mandate that you pay child support to your former spouse in an amount sufficient to provide a higher level of living than they had while married. However, it should be able to mandate that you provide sufficient child support to maintain the same level of living.
It's just that the whole "Well, I could have decided to live like a bum while married, so I shouldn't have to provide more than a bums support for my children" bit smacks of selfishness when you didn't live that way when married and only now decide this is what you want to do now that you're faced with the potential of child support payments.