For over a decade, she has carried the heavy burden of abandonment and betrayal, watching her exhusband disappear into the shadows of addiction and jail while their children’s needs went unmet. Despite the legal obligations and the quiet desperation of raising two kids on public assistance, she faced the cold reality of a man who never paid his dues, a man who vanished from their lives but still cast a long, painful shadow.
Her heart aches not just for the lost support, but for the shattered family and the decaying home that once held so much promise. Every plea from him—whether to erase his debts or surrender his parental rights—only deepens the wound, a reminder that some battles are not just about money, but about the fractured bonds of trust and responsibility that may never be mended.
AITAH for letting my exhusband go to jail?
Dr. Lori Gottlieb, a psychotherapist and author known for her work on relationships and self-awareness, often discusses the difference between what we want and what we need, and the necessity of holding firm boundaries. In this case, the primary motivation for continuing the pursuit of child support, even when the ex-husband cannot pay, shifts from immediate financial need (as the OP is off public assistance) to a question of accountability and parental responsibility.
The OP’s decision is deeply rooted in boundary setting and the principle of legal obligation. Forgiveness of arrears happened once to facilitate divorce, but allowing subsequent non-payment without consequence sets a precedent that the father’s responsibilities are optional. The OP acknowledges the kids struggled, meaning the financial damage is already done. Continuing the case now serves less as a financial tool and more as a statement: the obligation remains legally binding. The guilt felt by the OP is common in situations where one must enforce a harsh consequence on someone perceived as vulnerable (addiction, homelessness, mother’s support). However, the father’s repeated requests to drop support or sign away rights show a desire to escape responsibility, not necessarily a genuine interest in rehabilitation.
The OP’s action to state ‘yes’ to pursuing support was appropriate in asserting legal rights and demanding accountability, even if the immediate financial recovery is unlikely. The suggestion that jail time might keep him alive by forcing sobriety is a perceived secondary benefit, not the legal goal. Moving forward, the OP should focus on the legal process as a matter of principle, separating the father’s addiction struggles from his fundamental legal duty to his children. A constructive step would be to communicate clearly with the relevant enforcement agency that while the debt remains, the focus should shift to securing future compliance or formalizing a legal termination of rights if that is what the OP ultimately desires, rather than relying on the punitive cycle of the legal system for personal change.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
The individual in this situation faces a difficult emotional conflict. On one hand, there is relief and validation in seeking the legally mandated financial support for their children after years of neglect. On the other hand, there is guilt over pursuing an action that results in the ex-partner’s incarceration, tempered by a slight hope that this consequence might spur positive change in his life.
Is the pursuit of legally owed, yet historically unpaid, child support justified when the known outcome is the incarceration of a non-contributing parent, especially when that consequence might offer a temporary chance at sobriety? Or is the continuation of this legal battle a futile exercise that only punishes the parent without benefiting the children financially?
