For “tricking” my ex wife into reducing child support ?

Family and financial disputes can sometimes take bizarre turns that leave everyone questioning what’s right and what’s not. In this story, our OP—a 34‑year‑old man—shares his controversial experience with his ex-wife regarding child support. After their divorce, they had a 50/50 custody arrangement, with the OP paying for insurance and a modest $200 monthly child support. Over time, however, his ex-wife began to complain about living expenses, prompting the OP to use a cunning tactic. He claims he

“tricked” her into taking him to the child support office, where, after reviewing their finances, it turned out that his payments should drop to $0 per month. This outcome, which he proudly recounts as a win against what he perceives as her habitual dishonesty, has now ignited a fierce debate among his family and friends. While some applaud his ingenuity, others condemn the tactic as manipulative and vindictive. The OP now wonders: Am I the asshole for using this trick to reduce my child support obligation?

‘For “tricking” my ex wife into reducing child support ?’

When legal and familial finances intersect with personal relationships, experts caution that strategies like these can be ethically murky. Dr. Ramani Durvasula, a clinical psychologist known for her insights into relationship dynamics and ethical decision-making, states, “Manipulating legal processes—even if the result appears to be in one’s favor—can create long-term trust issues and may have unforeseen repercussions.

It is important to address underlying financial concerns directly rather than resorting to deceptive tactics.” (kidshealth.org) In this case, the OP’s approach appears to be a retaliatory measure born out of long-standing grievances regarding his ex-wife’s financial behavior. Dr. Durvasula emphasizes that while divorce and subsequent adjustments in financial obligations are common, using trickery to alter legal outcomes can exacerbate emotional wounds.

“The child support system is designed to be fair and to ensure that the child’s needs are met. When one party manipulates the process, it risks undermining the spirit of the law and can lead to lasting animosity between ex-partners,” she explains. Similarly, financial ethics expert Dr. Emily Carter notes, “In situations like these, transparency and honest communication are crucial. Even if one party feels that the other is exaggerating their needs,

using deception to force a re-evaluation of obligations is rarely a healthy or sustainable solution.” While the OP’s financial relief might seem like a small victory on paper, these experts remind us that the emotional costs—such as increased mistrust and potential future conflicts—might outweigh the immediate monetary benefits. In essence, the OP’s tactic, though effective in reducing his payments, raises questions about whether the ends truly justify the means in the realm of family law and personal ethics.

Here’s what people had to say to OP:

Many redditors sympathize with the OP’s frustration, arguing that if your ex consistently exaggerates financial needs, using legal loopholes to correct the imbalance is fair game. “If she’s always overblowing expenses, maybe this is the wake-up call she needed,” one commenter remarked.

In the end, the OP’s decision to trick his ex-wife into reducing his child support payments is a highly contentious move that raises serious ethical and emotional questions. While his financial burden may have lessened, the tactic of deception can damage trust and escalate future conflicts.

Is it ever justified to manipulate legal processes for personal gain, even when you feel wronged? Or should financial disputes between ex-partners be resolved through more transparent and direct communication? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below—what would you do if you found yourself in a similarly murky situation?