Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota rube 
No; it isn't excessive. As I've already noted, the child is mine. She deserves whatever I can give her.
+1.
It's difficult to keep track of the number of times that male acquaintances of mine have turned into terrible pricks once they separate - and, in pretty much all the cases, it was arguably the husband's fault, due to him having affairs or deciding that he didn't want to be married with kids as it interfered with his life too much.
They move out, decide that they don't want the kid as a burden on their lifestyle, and then decide that they only want to pay the bare minimum to support a child or children that is theirs - because having to pay to support their own children makes it difficult for them to have a mid-life crisis, buy a sports car and date younger women.
Alright, so perhaps I exaggerated a little in the last paragraph.
Nonetheless, I find it difficult to see how even GQgeek could disagree that, if you have been a stay-at-home mother with three kids and your husband earns a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year and your marriage breaks down because he couldn't keep his trousersnake inside his trousers, your husband should support his children to a reasonable standard. Why should his kids suffer a large drop in their standard of living just because he doesn't want to be married anymore?
The key here - as Rube said - is that they are his children. His children. So the hypothetical rich husband in this case should step up to the plate and support them instead of jerking his kids around and trying to get out of paying a reasonable sum to them.
Unfortunately, these situations quite understandably and regrettably become marred by bitterness and by issues that do not involve the kids but are instead simply between the parents, but the kids often suffer as a consequence.
