From experience on both sides of sending and receiving, and hearing dozens of personal friends' horror stories ...

I think it should be done away with.

Comments?

xpButtercup - What should be done away with Child Support??? I don't think that would be fair to the person that is responsible for the children - I mean yes it is a hassle and we never get enough - but - to get none at all - seems silly..

I don't have personal experience. (no kids)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question. Are you suggesting doing away with Child support? Why?

However, my opinion goes like this... when it works, it works. And many times, it's fair and necessary. My sister needs it, her xH can afford it, and he pays on time. There's never been a problem.

There's zillions of stories like this... the wife supports the husband through medical/law school etc., while putting her education on hold. Then he runs off with another woman, leaving her behind with the kids and no job or or marketable skills. Seems like child support is most-needed in these situations.

Families where H/W are equal bread-winners... that's a different story.

I also work in a bank, overseeing Child-support collections, and it's unbelievable the amount of money some dead-beat parents have in their accounts, and they are thousands of $$ behind in their child-support. Ummmm... why aren't they supporting the child they chose to have???

Nope, don't agree. Children usually need the incomes of both parents to survive.

I do agree that **in some cases** the rights of fathers are ingored and the reality is that some men cannot afford to send up-to-half their salary to their ex-family and support themselves on what remains.

Here in Canada, there are internet sites filled with stories of men who have gone bankrupt trying... or worse... have committed suicide. Those situations are, I would think, NOT the norm.

Child support is a reality that will not go away, and it shouldn't.

However, I do understand how frustrating it can be when the custodial parent wants a higher level of lifestyle than the one shared when the parents were together. If, while together, they couldn't afford for Johnny to play soccer, why should Dad be forced to foot the bill now that they're apart? If Janie was going to have to try for scholorships to the college of her choice while Mom and Dad were married, why should Dad be forced to pay out of pocket now?

Still, if you abolish CS, there's gonna be a whole lot of gov't intervention and single-parents (usually mom's) living in poverty. That's not a good thing.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

Well, since I'm the receiver of child support AND alimony, my opinion is er, slightly biased <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I make a fraction of what my exWH makes. We married young, I worked full-time AND had his baby while he went to law school.

He left the marriage, and it was important to him that the quality of his DAUGHTER'S life and yes, mine too, not change due to his poor choices. As for the alimony, I prolly could've gotten alot more, but I do work, and he's very generous and pays for things above and beyond for his daughter. W/O the CS and alimony, I would have had to sell my home, and move our daughter to a different school district, get a full-time job (I work part-time now) and not be home in the afternoons for DD like I was when we were still married, uproot her from her friends and her life, and he did not want to impact her that way if we didn't have to.

I believe what I recieve is generous, but fair.

Amounts will change should I re-marry, as it should.

Does everyone who receives child support believe that the payer would not contribute toward the upbringing of the child(ren) if not forced to?

I hear where you're going, xpb.

When my ex and I separated, we had no "agreement" on paper, but he orally agreed to pay the rent on our house ($650) which he did every month. I have no doubt that he would have done that forever, had the situation remained the same.

Our divorce agreement had no CS (we had one minor son - 16), no alimony, and only division of assets that we both agreed to (I gave my car to our daughter while separated and he bought me a very-used car to use temporarily - I left it for him to sell and keep the money when I moved)... we told each other if bills came in each other's names... and then paid our own. There are some things of mine still in his shed (a few pieces of furniture) that he thankfully keeps for me.

We both know how lucky we are. We could have gotten very nasty about the whole thing, but didn't.

The kind of arrangement you're speaking of is possible, but I don't think the norm. Like devwife, who has a honey of a situation... I bet she knows how blessed she is!

Well my ex only pays what he pays that it is stated in the divorce papers - and he was suppose to pay for 1/2 of extra actvities - which he didnt' do for two years..But I struggled through and got a parttime job to keep them in their actitvities and he is suppose to pay for 1/2 of copays and prescriptions if they are sick but I never ask- Now as for payee if it wasn't in writing he would never have... I mean I dont' have it in writing how much time he spends with his children therefore he shows up on holidays and birthdays and an occassional lunch or ride maybe once or twice a month - to make himself look good - and still be able to say that I have turned the kids against him.. And in our divorce papers it states that the parents have no limitations on the childrens visits that they will do what is in the best interest of the children... But I truly believe if it said he had to take them every other weekend - well then he would have... But it is his loss...

I don't think it's fair to say men don't want to support their children. Well at least not as a generalization. Of course there are men out there who are deadbeats.

In my case, I'm willing to support my daughter. What I have a hard time with is trusting a cheater ex-spouse.

If the system had a way of checking that the money was actually used for the child and not spent on trips with her lover to the keys or other things, then non-custodial parents would be more inclined to pay.

I tried to get 50/50 parenting time, without seeking any sort of reduction in CS, and was refused. Why, because my ex-wife set the precedent when she left and took the child.

Many men want to support our children, we just resent others telling us exactly how we are supposed to do that.

Talk about the ultimate in DJ's.

T

ummmm.... c'mon xPB. I'm very confused as to your questions. Where are you coming from??? What is your experience... I mean why are you asking this? Do you believe the payer would contribute if not required to do so?

I mentioned being involved with collections of these things... you should hear the excuses... excuses as to why we shouldn't collect on back child-support... "I have to pay my rent" "I have to pay my bills" "I can't afford it". Well, the custodial parent has these problems too, right? And should these "excuses" get the non-custodial parent off the hook for providing some support for their own offspring??? "Given the choice", many payers DON'T pay even when required, and many states DON'T have a good system for coming after them.

This sure is a sticky subject isn't it? My situation is VERY differnt than most. When I got pregnant, I had the better job and benefits, etc. than my exH had. WE decided that it'd be best that he stay home until our son hit kindergarten where he would then return to his field. He was an underground locator and land surveyor. Very good fields which don't change where you'd lose your own marketability. I then ended up being the primary wage earner. I was the wife. Fast forward 3 years, when we put our son in preschool 3 days a week for 2 hours a day for socialization and well...preschool. My exH started volunteering there to cut the costs some. This is where he met OW. Fast forward a year and a half later....he takes $20K out of a line of credit to move out. Insists staying at the day care center now working full time there with OW AND my son denying in court that we ever had any agreement that he'd go back to his field when our son hit kindergarten. This was to stay with the OW at work instead of going back to paying his own way with a job that would co support our son. He testified in court that "he had found his calling in child care." I end up paying for court costs, his attorney, my attorney, paid tens of thousands for the community property settlement, paid $680 in alimony for 18 months AND $300 a month for child support which I continue to do. (That's almost $1,000 a month) I had/have my son more than 50% of the time. He got to claim our son on taxes for the first 2 years, now we alternate, he's in before/after school care now where I pay 100% of the fees for that. I pay all medical coverage through my job, but he pays 50% of copayments & any meds. I pay for all extracurricular activities. Field trips at school, "donations" to the classroom, 95% of all clothing, etc. In my state, my salary is below the average.

I don't think child support should go away, but in a lot of cases, there should really be A LOT more restrictions placed on who gets how much for how long. That's just my 2 cents. :-)

Absolutely NewBeg, I do.

As for whether he'd pay if it wasn't written in stone, I'd like to believe he would. I mean, the year we were separated, he continued to pay the mortgage and all the bills still, on top of all his new expenses at his appt etc. My "financial" life remained unchanged. His guilt consumed him, although not enough to stop his affair <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />, but enough to keep paying the bills. I guess if I was off blowing the money on myself, well that'd be a different story.

Now that being said, EE brought up a good point about the payors of CS being assured that the money goes towards the kids. I get that. Absolutely. My exWH knows how much it cost to keep my household running. He used to live here! The fact that I'm not parading around in a new wardrobe, dripping in jewels, and driving a new car, shows that the money is being used for DD and I to live.

I AM very blessed and have no complaints on that front. He did right by us, as he should have.

DW~~
Your story reads much like mine concerning CS and A.

We relocated to a new state 9 years ago. At the time, our d's were young, and we knew no one, so the choice was made that I be a stay at home mom, and he work on his career.
I had a full-time, [and part-time after kids] job before relocating.
Fast forward 5 years, h job going well, worked himself up, has a honey at work.......and so on.
When h left home, I too was kept in the same $$ situation. It was minimal the money he kept for himself each week and I was given the rest for keeping everything going.
He made his choices, and not good ones at that, but he did provide for us, and still does. At least thru all his choices, guilt must have been powerful when it came to providing.

I really can't complain too loudly about my situation either. I think mine came out fair [as should have] and he also pays a bit more CS than he had to.
I no longer have my new home, but I've exchanged it for a nice rental home, with the basics, and the girls and I live in town, and life is for the most part easier.

I now have a part-time job again, but my priority is still our d's, and I am their primary care giver. I couldn't make it without the CS&A.

Karona

I also gave up a job to move with my H, and then we moved again. We decided that I would be a SAHM after our sixth child was born. Three years later he left. I found a job, and for a few months, we were keeping our heads above water, with my income and the child support. Awhile after he left, he lost his job, and stayed unemployed for 2.5 years, until the OW got him a job that is only slightly above menial in pay. He had never been unemployed for more than a few weeks during the quarter of a century we were together, and had been earning almost six figures. In my state, the first priority of the courts is making sure the NCP has enough to live on, and they refused to impute income based on the fact that he pays no housing expenses and was driving a brand new 32K car that the OW bought for him. (I found out later that his lawyer used to work in the DA's office, which could have been a factor). He pays the mandatory pittance in child support, but not the activity expenses or college expenses that he agreed to in the settlement. I know what it is like to live with hardly any child support, and it is He!!. In spite of the fact that I work full-time, we don't have nearly enough money to live on - even though we moved to a tiny 3 bedroom, one bath ranch. Actually, I think I would be better off without child support, because then I would be eligible for fuel assistance and the reduced price lunch program, etc.

Shrug....I don't force my ex to pay child support and I've never gotten it. One excuse after another.

So, Xbc, yes....if *some* folks are not required to, then they don't.

First off, let me say that when our Divorce was final, I was awarded CS and Alimony and those who live in TX know there is no alimony unless certain conditions apply.

My CS and alimony was supposed to start Nov 1...I have yet to recieve any money. That is a whole other story...the AG is investigating this.

OK, so...When I married XH, I was in school, he had just finished Med School. WE married, moved overseas. We Came back preggos while he finished his duty. He did his REsidency while another child was on the way. I am a stay at home mom at this time. We moved again and got preggos again. I now have 3 kids under the age of 4.

So, when am I to finish my schooling. He makes a lot of money. I stay home with the kids, and support his desisions. 4 years later, he has an A and another child. I'm not supposed to get CS???? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

I was awarded CS based on HIS income. I was awarded alimnoy based on our situation. Married more than 10 years, no education, stay at home mom for 10 years. I have 30 months to finish my education and then Alimony stops. But the CS goes on.

I think both parents should support THEIR children. it is not fair that one parent does all the support while the other gets to enjoy it for free. I know my H would not support his children unless the court made him. He doesn't even see them.

Every situation is different, but i dont agreee that CS should be done away with. I would be living on the streets if I didnt' get it. Which I am almost there as I havent' gotten any money in 4 months.

just my .02

When we were first married, EX was in college. I worked until my 1st child was born. EX finished college and I worked part time until my child was in school. Once my son was in Kindergarten, I worked full time until I had my second child. I became a stay at home Mom, and in less than 4 years, I had 5 kids total. EX was making a 6 figure income. EX went back to school to obtain his MBA, a year after that he started making even more money and 6 months later the affair started.

We lived in a 4,000 sq ft home, 4 vehicles, the children were very involved with activities. Now I live in a 3 bdrm ranch, and I drive a toyota camery that is paid for. My kids wear decent clothes at my house but not name brand clothes.

EX had no guilt about the A and feels that he should only pay the minimal. He does not care about his children, they now wear rags at his house, but OW have new car, her children wear name brand clothes, they each have cell phone (ages 16, 11, 8)and EX travels with OW and her children everywhere. My children have not gone on vacation with EX, he always tell them he has no money. When we were married, every summer we rented a beach house for a week. This past summer my children didn't go anywhere, once school started for my kids and OW's kids were still out, EX rented the same beach house for a week for OW and her children. My kids got to go there for a day trip.

OW had no money. They lived paycheck to paycheck until she hooked up with my EX.

I do recieve CS and A, I don't have to work, but I do not live the same life style I was used to. Now I live in a 3 bdrm ranch, and I drive a toyota camery that is paid for. My kids wear decent clothes at my house but no name brand clothes.I am enrolled in school so I can have a career once A runs out. I feel that if EX wasn't made to pay CS, he wouldn't. So, I am glad CS exists.

I would also like to add that XH tells our kids that he has no money. He has 6 cars, one being a brand new Excursion. OW has a new car. OW quit her job to stay home with the baby and care for the boys when X has them.

DS10 asked me the other day if I could buy him an Ipod...i was under the assumption that X was giving that to him for Xmas. DS10 told me X told him he couldnt' afford no more than 3 presents each for each boy. so DS10 didnt' get what he wanted. Had I known this I would have gottne it for him. I go out of my way to provide for my kids, yet make a minute amount of what X brings home. He makes more in one week than most make in a 6 month period.

He wanted to give me the BARE minimum for CS and NO alimony. I have had to cash in IRA's just to pay bills. I have racked up a $4,000 credit card bill just to pay bills. My car is about to be repoed along with my house. I am struggling until the AG's gets me my money.

X is not concerned. DS7 asked if we could give daddy our basketball court cuz he doesn't have one. I told DS7 he could buy one and his response was "Daddy doesn't have any money" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> WTF??? I told DS7 I would buy daddy a court for $60 and give it to them.

He tells the kids all the time he has no money. It sucks being Ed doesn't it. I know I was awarded a LOT of CS and alimony, however I also was promised to be taken care of when we got married. That I would have the opportunity to finish my degree once DS5 entered kinder, which he did this year. I am in persuit of that degree NOW. BUT, I am a single mother of 3 going to school full time with no help.

Sorry, I'll quit now. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Mom,
OK, I have to laugh because my X is also Ed. And constantly tells the kids "Daddy doesn't have any money" .
Yet, he wants them to go skiing with them, and I told him we can't afford it. DD8 said, well then how can daddy?
The kids get it. They see this stuff and they will make their own judgements.

I get very little CS, but do use what I get on the kids. Life is expensive. I do believe in CS, particularly as there are so many families that need it and can't get it.

I take this as a good sense of... dark humor... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Each party should contribute to the support of the child, period. I will be an amount based on the income of each party, but it should always be something. In my case, I got custody of my 15yo daughter and 18yo son. The son doesn't figure in since he is of age, but my wife was determined that she shouldn't pay anything since I "make all the money". In the end, I agreed to no CS from her since to get it would have meant going to trial, and it would have cost about what I would get over the next couple of years in lawyers fees. Sometimes principle takes a back seat to fiscal realities. I also wanted a negotiated settlement so I could pay her off in lump sum alimony instead of permanent alimony (divorce herpes). She is supposed to pay half of my daughters medical expenses and cost of insurance. At the last minute, she wanted to limit that to $15 a month. $15 A MONTH! That's the sum total of what she was willing to contribute towards raising her daughter. (if it had gone to trial, she would be paying about $180) This is the same woman who claimed that her children were the most important thing to her. Bear in mind, she walked away with $170,000 in cash. (we sold the house) My daughter told me last week that if I gave her some money, her mother would take her shopping for bras. Ummm, no, if I'm paying, I'll take you.

"Each party should contribute to the support of the child, period."

I disagree. I gave up my education so he can complete his. Although I did not have an education, I had a decent paying job which I also gave up to be a stay at home Mom. This decision was very important to us. I took care of the household so EX can focus on his career. He even went back to school for his MBA. After he received his MBA, he started his A and said he found his soul mate, and I'm out. So you bet he better PAY CS!

"I also wanted a negotiated settlement so I could pay her off in lump sum alimony instead of permanent alimony (divorce herpes)."

I put in 20 years of hard work in my marriage. During my last 10 years I gave him 4 kids and stayed home to care our 5 kids, clean, do laundry, drive to activities, cook, pay bills, play hostess for his clients and coworkers, take care of all the outside work in the yard, arrange for family vacations, host holiday dinners for his family, and help him with occasional paper work for his business. I did this and did not receive any monthly pay checks. "Divorce Herpes?" call it what you will, but I deserve alimony, and as I see it, it's my severance pay.

I believe there may be some parents who would contribute, but to be on the safe side I think it needs to be a legal obligation. Heck, in my case I was dumb and let my ex off without having his wages garnished. Instead he's supposed to write a check once a week when he gets paid, mail it to the Clerk of Court, and they log it in the system and forward it to me. Well, if he and chicky-babe are a little short on funds (like when he had to furnish the house they bought with a big screen TV, or when they've gone here or there, or needed another vehicle, or like now when his year-end bonus wasn't what he'd hoped) they just don't pay. They drag things out for weeks and sometimes months. They don't return calls.

He's legally also required to split my DD's medical and dental bills 50/50, but has refused from day one to do that. I could take him to court, but the cost of that including an attorney would pretty much wipe out any money he owes, so he's off the hook there. I also carry the health insurance on the kids.

Yes, I make more than he does. That reduced the amount he was required to pay for support, but I don't think that should let him off the hook when it comes to supporting his biological child. Frankly I believe that because he's refused to try and foster any kind of relationship with her and has seen her only 2-3 times in the last year, he should pay more, because he's had absolutely zero cost when it came to her, unlike most NCP who have their kids for weekends and weeknights on a regular basis, and do incur costs.

But that's just my 2 cents!

LL

IMM,
Since the focus of this thread is CS, I won't shift the discussion over to alimony. They are very different subjects.

I stand by my statement that each party should contribute to the financial needs of the child. For instance, if your ex had primary custody does that relieve you of any financial responsibility for the child? I say no. Even if your ex makes 10 times what you do, you should still contribute something. In my state it's figured via a formula and it's pretty cut an dried. In that scenario you wouldn't pay much, but it wouldn't be zero. You are both responsible for raising that child; financially, emotionally, and physically.


The real problem with CS is that you have no control over how the money is used. Too many times it is not used for the benefit of the child.

See, I don't understand statements like this. During the marriage, the parent was responsible enough to spend the money wisely on the child but afterwards they are not?

My children are a priority for me, period. Whether I'm married to their father or not.

My exhusband says this to me, although for the last five years of our marriage I never spent a penny on myself, only the kids but now suddenly I'm going to mismanage his CS. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Coach,
Good for you. My comment was not meant to be a blanket statement and I applaud your devotion to your children. No offense intended. Those who put the best interests of their children ahead of their own cannot fathom the selfish behavior of other parents who look at CS as just another source of income. I have seen situations where the custodial parent was buying what most people would consider luxury items while the child was practically shoeless. Well, actually I lived next door to such a person, so I'm a bit sensitive to that.

Yes, I can totally understand that. It's just amazing to me that this is a man I was married to for 13 years. He KNOWS I always sacrificed my needs for my children and for him yet all of a sudden I left him and I'm going to spend his CS on things for myself instead of the kids!

Drummer,

The way I take care of my kids have not changed at all ever since my divorce. I am still the same mom, nothing have changed here. My kids are still my first priority. If I did not receive CS, they would probably be in rags. Unfortunately EX spends more money on OW and her children, than his own children. EX is doing the minimal amount he can get away with when it comes to his children, very sad, especially to his own flesh and blood!

Child support is such a small percentage of the NCP's income that it could hardly be used as a source of disposable income, unless the NCP were earning something like a quarter of a million a year.The child support I received for SIX kids would pay for a little more than a third of my mortgage - leaving two thirds of the mortgage on a tiny three bedroom ranch, the food bill, clothing, education, extracurricular activities, medical expenses, transportation, and college to be paid for out of my income. It is all about control - their father even complained about the fact that he thought I shouldn't be spending MY money (because he did not pay a cent of it) on contact lenses, while freely admitting that our child would probably see better with them. He actually said that he didn't think I should be spending my money that way - not claiming that it was "his" money.

Really? Child support by formula for me would have been $425 per week for two children (he makes $80K or so, gross). Not so small a % - its more than a 1/3 of his take home.

I make decent money, so we essentially split all "kid" expenses. We do have an amount of $250 per week spelled out in the divorce papers - in case he becomes a jerk.

In my state, if the CP earned $50,000 and the NCP earned $80,000, the child support for six children would be much less than that. For that matter, why do you consider one-third of his take home to be a lot of child support - wouldn't he have spent more than that if he were still at home? We spent at least 75% of my husband's income on the kids: 75% of the groceries, and close to 100% of activities/entertainment/clothing/education. Other than commuting expenses, a few hundred dollars a year for clothing, and fifty dollars a week or so for lunch and incidentals (and I don't spend nearly that much), what else would a parent need to spend specifically on him or herself? Once the NCP leaves, he still gets to split rent/mortgage/utilities with the OW (or in my H's case, she pays all of that), while the CP has to pay those expensive items alone.

No I'm just saying, what I "would" have received would have covered my entire mortgage and taxes, and a lot more. I probably couldn't live off it entirely - but with a part-time job? Yes quite comfortably.

I think CS has to be mandatory, otherwise we go back to the system where the parent who can provide financial support gets the custody.

Here's what I feel about paying CS voluntarily. I know that CS is really just an income transfer for household support, it cannot all be strictly allocated to kids clothes, kids meals, and so forth. That's fine, so long as it's just the theory behind a mandated payment by the state guidelines. But I could not work something out like that with my ex. The dishonesty she displayed in serial affairs spills into every part of her life, including money. She deliberately over-stated her child care expenses to increase her CS. I just can't see working through receipts and budgets with her on a basis of trust; that's what married people do. She had my replacement lined up, and for whatever reason it did not work out. But I would not pay her any money that I didn't have to.

Regarding the custody situation, I have about 1/3 overnights and would try to get more if I thought it was feasible through the courts. It has absolutely nothing to do with CS. I believe I'm the better parent.

Here's another wrinkle, she insisted that the settlement agreement state that she is not responsible for any college expenses, even though neither divorced parent can be required to pay for college in our state. So whatever I pay her in CS is not available for college. She makes the decisions on what CS is spent on. I would rather do that.

For me it's easier to have the CS be a standard calculation, and withheld from my paycheck just like another tax. There is no more stigma in that, than there was in getting divorced or being a cuckold.

Of course there are exceptions, people who can work it out, but maybe those are a minority. And they can still work within the system, at least in my state. They can always go tell the hearing officer they've agreed on an amount, and that gets plugged into the boilerplate support order.

See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. In many cases, this hurts the kids rather than the ex spouse.

I'm sure my exhusband felt the same way, and I'd always been responsible for the money in the family and never spent on myself. Just because I left him suddenly I'm not going to take care of my children?? I'm sorry, I just don't think someone who was previously a great mother slips that far, no matter the adultery.

I remember being at Walmart after the separation and not being able to buy my daughter a nightgown that she wanted and needed, which was $10.00. I couldn't afford it and groceries for that week. If you're supporting your kids that is fine and good for you, but because he wasn't paying enough CS I couldn't get it.

My best girlfriend's ex H is a deadbeat. He lives in a room of his parents trailer, across the country. He usually doesn't work, and when he does, it's part-time sales stuff like selling cemetary plots. While they were married, he barely contributed to their son's life. No surprise that he'd renege on his upbringing after the divorce. Mandate or no mandate, this man would not pay, or spend time with his son.

Nellie, your sitch somewhat mirrors that, although I understand you never expected this from him. You get the extra problem of him being ABLE to see your children, but choosing not to (either by OW's demands or his own choice).

What's really frustrating is when dad is NOT a deadbeat but is treated like one because he can't contribute as much as the custodial parent needs. Raising children is expensive business. If both parents remained in the home, and college wasn't an option without scholorships WHILE both were there, why expect it when divorced? I spoke to this on page 1 of this thread (I think).

As always, I'm just the sap that thinks everyone, given the opportunity, will give all they can to their children. Sadly, this doesn't happen... and who gets hurt? The children. Yeah, the parents hurt, but they're adults. It's the kids that get the crap end of the stick.

Neither my ex or I put *any* mandates in our divorce agreement. Maybe ya'll think we're idiots, but I don't think so.

We know we both were, and are doing the best we can. I fall VERY short (financially) for myriad reasons. He knows and understands. He falls short (emotionally) for myriad reasons. I know, and understand. We pick up the slack for each other.

He's doing the best he can, and so am I. THANK GOD our kids know it, too.

Oh, to live in a perfect world... where divorce wouldn't happen and all children would be born to parents who love them and are able to provide for them until they can provide for themselves. With things the way they are, even parents who stay together struggle like mad to provide. It's just sad.

Friend of the Court sent me five envelopes this week, all mailed on the same day, all with three sheets of paper in them, and every one identical except for the figures were different in one of them.

I called to see what was up.

Apparently when they have a change they send a new withholding order to all employers on record (including all the ones my ex is no longer employed with) and that's why I got five copies.

They couldn't even tell me why the numbers were different on one of them.

They tried to say it was arrearages. He is not in arrears. (Okay, he was $21 behind. Wow. Call out the cavalry.)

Then they tried to tell me I'd had the CS reviewed and it was changed. Nope, strike two.

Finally they figured out that it is for unpaid medical that he owes me, that I submitted (get this) FOUR MONTHS AGO. They just didn't have it listed under medical. It was under "other--defined below" with no definition, of course. The FoC lady couldn't even tell me WHY it was entered that way.

This is all just FoC in MY county. My hubby pays to another county, who is notorious for being WORSE than mine.

He doesn't even want to call to get his CS reviewed, even though he is making 3x less than he was AND his ex is now working and wasn't. He is entitled to a reduction, but the FoC has treated him so badly in the past he can't stand the thought of dealing with them again.

It is not a good system. Their computer even has an incorrect city listed for my zip code, and she says she cannot change it. Actually argued with me that I was wrong. I've lived in the same zip/city most of my life! It is a small town, no suburbs, nothing nearby! ACK!

Well, CS is designed to support the kids and the ex. My preference would be to support the kids only.

You presume that she was, and still is, a great mother who puts the kids first. But they wouldn't see the doctor, dentist, allergist, or optometrist if I didn't take them. They would have to drop out of most activities if I didn't pay the fees and take them. Even though CS makes both of our net incomes equal, to within a few percent.

I'm sorry things were tight for you, and I don't know your background. But I do feel that adultery is a reflection of underlying character, and all of my personal experience with my ex-wife supports that.

TMMX, your points are heard. Courts can't address all individual situations, so they try to find the allocation to help the majority.

I can replace your words above with my X. He pays minimal CS, and I take it to benefit the kids. It amounts to groceries.

I believe that those X's who misuse CS for themselves are in the minority, not the majority. For those parents who sacrifice for the benefit of the kids, I believe it is rewarded on a daily basis and will be during your children's lives.

I believe so too.

And... I hardly can stand when a NCP paying CS says he gives money to their x wives.
I don't know how much he has to pay to think it's for her too.

E.g., my x pays 9% of his income.
A few months ago I spent one month CS just for - tickets for 5 children's shows in a theatre for my son and myself.
Every month I deposit 1/3 of CS to an Educational Funds account I opened for my son, plus the equal amount out of my money.
And he knows all of this. He knows that I'm devoted mother.
Yet, when he's mad (at his present life), he'd say I have two income. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />
I'd like to see him giving 3-4 times higher CS some other NCPs who earn more are paying... not because of money, but just to see his face. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />)

Alimony is something else and only in specific cases I 'support' it.
But CS?!!

Only once in my lifetime I heard a guy saying - my child is healthy, growing nicely, has his (paid) hobbies, nicely dressed, and I SEE that CS is properly used.

So, I'd have a question for the other ones - do your kids look like starving, walking in torn clothes?

Sorry, I just get mad... whenever we are talking about kids and measuring how much they (don't) need...
They need, in any case, much more than any divorced parents are giving them, especially NCP!

Also, it's really very important to distinguish our opinion of our Xs as our Xs with all hurt they caused Vs. them as co-parents.
If I consider only what I think of my X as X, I'd never give him joint legal custody.
But, as the father of my child, I agreed (although I'll always have problems with him).

To add:

I don't need CS at all. I have always earned more than him, and with money I earn I could easily live with my son without this small CS "I" presently receive.

But, I'd never vote for CS taken away.
Not only because there are CPs who needs that additional money for kids, and most of them need, but because NCPs are parents too, and they should be providing for their kids too.
Especially in cases NCPs insist to be involved in children's lives, moreover in making decision regarding their schooling, hobbies, vacation... like in my case.
(One example: I took our son for a vacation to Carribean last year, paid a couple of thousands, and my X complained that I paid too much and how could I. And that vacation equals 8 months CS.

So, he knows where CS goes, but - it's just his jelaousy...


Also... X spends for alcohol more than he gives for CS.
He'd never compare those two expenses...
I wonder, does any NCP compare... spending e.g. with some other women, their kids, Vs. what they spend on their own children...

My H is earning a lot less than he was before he left, but that doesn't mean the children eat any less or that the cost of keeping a roof over their heads goes down. If he were still home, he would have done whatever was necessary to replace his lost income - taken a second job, cared for the children who were young at the time while I worked full-time, updated his skills, etc. He was unemployed for years. He could have extended his benefits for quite awhile if he had gone back to school, but he was unwilling to borrow money to do so. A responsible parent does whatever is necessary to make sure his kids have enough money to live on; once the NCP leaves, he (or she) often seems to think that is no longer his responsibility.

College is never not an option, assuming the child's grades are good enough to get in. Without either college or a skilled trade, it is almost impossible to support yourself and a family. If you are really poor enough not to be able to afford it, you will get grants and loans. Assuming reasonably good credit, you can get a PLUS loan; they do not consider your income/debt ratio. If your credit is not good, then the child can get a bigger Stafford loan. The real issue is that many NCP's don't care whether their kids go to college. My H once started to say something in front of the counselor about how he was not going to mortgage his future so his kids could go to college, and then in mid-sentence apparently realized how awful that sounded.

Oh yes, Nellie, college is a necessary, and wonderful thing.

Let me tell you about my mother, who got her AA in her 30's, BA in her 40's, Masters in her 50's and Ph.D. in her 60's. What a role model, eh?

For me, I took 20 years to get my Associates Degree. I was 41 the day I walked to get my diploma. I value education!

Hear me.

I used college as an example (and a poor one, obviously).

I could have used any one of many things: sports, hobbies, "wants" (as compared to "needs")... my point is that if parents who remain together cannot afford something, it's a pretty sure bet that a dad who's paying support won't be able to foot the bill by himself, either.

I want the best for my kids... sadly, their father and I couldn't always afford the best. Now that we're divorced, neither of us expects the other to NOW provide the best - we couldn't together, how could we apart?

That's my point.

I have the dubious distinction of seeing this from both sides, as you know. I don't speak often about my situation publicly... but you know... we live in poverty... our rent is two months behind... in a slummy apartment... we have no car, no car insurance (can't afford it - engine blew up on car and we can't afford to fix it - it's been a year)... internet is our only luxery and this month we are on the brink of losing it. My part-time job helps little, but pays for food. I can't find a full-time position that doesn't require night hours (call center type work - there is the bus schedule to consider). I walk to work. No life of Riley over here.

Do his children suffer because of it. Yes. We can't do any extras, Christmas and birthday gifts are often late. We can't see them like we'd like ('cause we can't get there without a car). It's a crappy situation all around.

WE will be okay, because we're adults, and we can reason through it. His kids are children... and don't understand, fully (though they are teenagers, and obviously can see how dad lives).

So, back to the point: Dad lives in poverty. Does the best he can. He wishes it could be better, does all he can to make it so... but... can't.

So when we speak about child support, and we're not talking about deadbeat dads and moms, but parents who are doing their best but it's never enough... who would do their best as a member of the original family, or as a divorced parent... that is where I come from...

Life is difficult enough. Divorce is earth-shattering to all involved. When there are children who need to be supported, it adds an element that is hard to ignore.

I understand and mostly agree. However, this "system" that will raise the CS when the payer gets a higher paying job or lower the CS when the parent gets a lower paying job in one county, won't do the same in the next county over. They raised it from what it was to what it is based on the circumstances of the day, but will not lower it due to circumstances of the next.

If anything, they should base it on annual income, using the past year's 1040 or something ... rather than the whim of a payee who knows their ex is working overtime in a certain month. Does that make any sense? My hubby's CS is NOT based on his average income. He pays more for one than I receive for two because his ex chose to not work. Not, couldn't work, or shouldn't work, but chose to lie about her marital status to stay in low-income single parent housing, and chose to stop working! Let's not get into how she stated that she quit working because her babysitters kept quitting because of her daughter (my stepdaughter) ... got a long road there ahead of me. *sigh*

[color:"green"] OK, You might find this really offensive.

First of all, why would you take on responsibility for westley's child support. If he is not working then he should go down and get the amount recalculated.

No ifs, ands, or buts.

He is not showing care for you by continuing to allow you to pay it for him and especially that he is not going for a reduction. (Why should he anyway, it's not like it is his money or anything.)

That was really mean and harsh, but buttercup, he is not benefitting you or your children by not taking care of his own business.

That means acting like a man. That means going to the CS office and getting a reduction if he is not working and not letting the idiots that run the place stop him.

That means going out and getting a job even if it is minimum wage so that your new wife and children don't suffer because they are paying money out of their budget for your old child.

V. [/color]

Yes, I had an affair in my first marriage, and it was a mistake. I MADE A MISTAKE. Should my children suffer financially forever because of that mistake? I don't think that's right. I think it's possible to have sometimes a one time slip in character and make a mistake. I do not think it makes me a horrible person for the rest of my life.

IMO, CS is for the kids, not the spouse. I never asked for a penny for myself- and I gave him the home we'd both worked for- which I considered fair, because I was the one who wanted out. What I wanted and needed for the kids is all I asked for. Even still, he wants to pay it to the school directly and not to me, to keep me from spending it! Even though I had an affair- which was only a one time deal I am still a good mother. Yes, my mistake changed my kids lives, and I desperately regret that but I'm still a good mother.

I never even asked for the full amount that I could get because he couldn't afford it he said. He dresses them like little orphans while he wears brand new clothes, drives a new vehicle and spends thousands on his hobbies every year. We split the co pays for medical and he bills me for every freaking activity that they go in to. Then, he told me his parents wanted to enroll our daughter in dance this year and pay for that themselves and he tried to bill me for half of that!

There are plenty of dads out there that do right by their children and I am fully aware of that. What we need is for parents to stop trying to punish the other parent with money- no matter which way it goes- and to focus on what really matters- which is the children. This goes for the people that try to manipulate their ex's with the childrens time and attention as well and who try to use them as pawns in their emotional games with their ex's.

This discussion gets rehashed again and again.

I don't see this solely as a money issue, but rather as an accountability issue. The problem with the current system is that money is forced from the non-custodial parent and given to the custodial parent to use as they see fit. The custodial parent is under NO OBLIGATION whatsoever to spend the money on the kids, which is the purpose of this coerced remittance. Most probably do spend most of the money on the kids, but not all do this. I'm sure the fine people here at MB getting child support would forego the new Gucci handbag (or Dewalt router) for some school clothes for the kids. Not all people are like that. Not all people will put aside their own desires for the good of the children. That is a fact.

If the money went into an escrow account where bills could be applied against the balance of that account, then at least there would be SOME accountability for how the money is spent. At least there would be a paper-trail of where the money went.

Many people do not make good decisions with money, look at the number of bankruptcies filed in the US in any given year. If your X is one of these people, and you have to give them a large portion of your income, and they can spend it as their fancy dictates, then this is a problem if care about the welfare of you children.

Oh, I don't know what the answer to this is either . . . other than to advise young men to get vasectomies so they don't have to deal with this issue. I once heard a financial analyst say that having children is the single largest financial mistake that people can make, the next is line is to divorce. I agree that having kids is a huge fiscal burden, but I entered into it knowing that and am happy with my decision to have them. I do agree that divorce is often a catastrophic financial blunder that devastates both spouses and the kids.

Coach's Wife said: "Even still, he wants to pay it to the school directly and not to me, to keep me from spending it!"

Well, it seems rational to me that he may think this. Have you ever tried to empathize with with this situation from his perspective? Let me try to get you to see this from your x's eyes. You had an affair. You broke up the marriage. You took the kids and you replaced him with someone else. I bet he is bitter. I bet he doesn't trust your judgement one bit.

I'm a FWS. I know that my A doesn't define me, the same as your's doesn't define you. If my wife now has concern trusting my judgement could you blame her?

People are going to fight over this forever... because well everyone has a difference of opinion... Most do the best that they can.. but some just don't pay and don't care and never look back... Fortunately my ex pays his weekly child support in a timely manner -it isn't a whole heck of alot because it was based on a weekly paycheck stub not annually and well annually all through our marriage with overtime he made more than me - but if you look at the stub - on a regular week with no overtime - I make more than him... So he is suppose to pay for half of all of the girls activities - for the first two years he did not - at all... So I in turn recently got a parttime job to pay for the extra's that my children need or want... Their father has been coming through lately - paying half of the dancing school - which is alot of money.. But they were involved before we got divorced... I think now I just say to him - listen this is what I paid if you can pay half fine if you can't whatever - it isn't worth the battle... that is why I got the job - but somewhere along the line I think he felt bad that I was paying for everything and started contributing... You know and when I get extra money from him for something that I hav e already paid for - well then I will take the money and buy my girls something and sometime I will buy myself something.. My girls never want for anything - they are my top priority even if they are not his all of the time... I don't think that people should accuse people of spending the money the way that they choose - as long as the kids are being taken care of.... I mean if my ex offered to pay my dance school - I am all for it - I have even told him that before - and actually he has started paying them every other month - we alternate - that way all of the money doesn't go to me... I think after awhile - hopefully it works itself out... But raising children requires alot of time and money...

Westley IS working ... just for much less than he was making then. Every time he has dealt with FoC it has been a waste of his time. They have put him in jail twice for nonpayment when he WAS unemployed (before we started dating). He just had a hearing last month with the lady who TOLD him he should have told them right away when he lost his job ... the only thing that came out of that hearing was he had to pay $500 to keep out of jail (I had to help with $200 of that) and then pay an additional amount every month (above and beyond what he already can't pay) until his arrears are paid off. NO talk of reducing CS.

So why do they do it for a dad in the next county? My ex goes from $10 to $8/hour and they cut the amount he owes me. Makes no sense for it to be one way in one county and different in another. There is ONE Michigan child support formula!! That's my vent. Base CS on what the parent is actually making! Make it fair!

You sound like one of the good ones. I do think that most custodial parents are like you.

If more arragements could be made where the money was applied directly to the bills for the custodial parents household I think that maybe, just maybe, there would be less push-back from the non-custodial parent.

I want to address this: "People are going to fight over this forever... because well everyone has a difference of opinion... Most do the best that they can.. but some just don't pay and don't care and never look back.."

And some CP spend the CS on new cars and jewlery and trips with their affair partners. I think the system should work to limit those types of abuses from happening. I personally know a lot of really selfish/immature and frankly bad parents. I would not trust them to spend money wisely. I guess this may cloud my judgement a bit. I know that most parents aren't like this.

[color:"green"]Well BC, I certainly feel for you. I paid child support for my second daughter in the amount of $100 a week when I had three other kids to support as well. This was after a bitter custody dispute which I finally gave up on after I got myself $20,000 in debt for lawyers fees.

Now, back to Westley. I gave the advice no matter what. If his last experience was negative - so what. Get back into the fray and don't give up until they treat you fairly.

Often there is no reduction in CS unless the CS itself would change 10 or 20%. If he is paying 20% of his net income, and let's say he is making $500 a week, then he would have to make $600 a week to affect a child support decision. That's a significant amount of cash to cause change - $100 bucks is a lot of money.

Your ex did have a 20% reduction in income - thus the change. $10 - $2 is $8. one over 10 divided by 2 is 0.2 or 20%. That is why his changed.


V.[/color]

...or, if they cannot aford, they don't remarry and have more kids...
how about this?

I really don't understand this.
If CS is not spent for kids, then what money is spent for their food, clothes, hobbies, schooling, and their part of home expenses bills?
I guess you think you pay $X fod kids, and your X spends half of it for kids and half of it for herself?
If so, how do you know that?

I agree, raised income raised CS and vice versa, i.e. CS according to earnings, not fixed amount for years, especially if someone is unemployeed. (And here, Ontario, CS changes according to income changes).

But, I don't understand... why would you give YOUR money to his kids from his previous marriage??
Don't you take that money from your own kids too??
And why don't you make HIM responsible to take care of his own children and not at your and your children expense??
How would he pay if there is no you to help him???

Btw, I cannot buy that there is a law that when you don't have money you have to pay, i.e. that you cannot fight against and regulate CS to be paid according to earnings...
In your case, let's say he has no you to pay, what would happen? Would he spend the rest of his life in prison?

If the NCP doesn't have enough money to pay mandated child support, why can't he or she get a second job? Around here, anyway, it is relatively easy to find a second job, as long as you are willing to take one that pays not much more than minimum wage. At seven dollars an hour, even an extra 10 hours a week would gross $70, and in my state, anyway, income from the second job would not be considered in the child support calculation.

I don't understand why a car is considered something that doesn't benefit the children. Most of the mileage on my car is from driving the kids to and from activities, and having a car that is safe and isn't in constant danger of breaking down definitely benefits the kids. I made the mistake of buying a used van a few years ago, and the first thing it did was catch fire on the highway, while I was driving my preschooler. Fortunately it was a small fire, and we escaped unharmed, but would any of the NCP's on this thread who are complaining about how the CP spends the child support really think it wouldn't have been better for my kids for me to have bought a newer, more reliable vehicle, even if it had cost more?

Most of the parents I know, married or single, spend most of their money on their kids - kids are why you might need/want a van, a four bedroom home, a vacation in Disney World, even a dog. I can't imagine what I would spend money on that wouldn't directly benefit the kids - aside from eating.

Is child support ordered by the court and you simply do not get it/go after it?
Or did you just not get it ordered by th ecourt?

Nellie,

I'm the one who complained about the buying of a car. In my case, my ex-wife traded an almost paid off 2000 model year minivan with about 45K miles that was extremely reliable for a 2004 VW Beetle. So now she has a vehicle to carry around my daughter that is smaller, less safe and she has payments that continue for the next five years. And now according to my YD, she is always broke.

It wasn't something she needed, it was something that she wanted, like her luxury apartment. And I'm paying for it.

Most cars, if taken care of can be reliably drive for 150K miles.

But never fear, I just purchased my first new car for me since 1994 on 12/31/05

Here's a different approach along the lines of what CN was suggesting:

1) When couples marry, they will pay a $2500 fee (each) to the state that goes to administer family services.

2) When they have children, they will be taxed a pre-set amount for each child based on the type of tax returns they file. Call it "child support withholding". This will be done whether the parents are married or not. Marital status will be irrelevant. Actually the tax will be equal for both parents and level of employment will be irrelevant. As another poster stated...let them get second jobs if they have to.

In fully functional families, this would be transparent, as money out = money in. It just gets handled through the state.

3) Parents will submit qualified child support expenses to the family services department for re-imbursement. The expenses submitted would follow strict guidelines.

4) At tax time, the parents would fill out an itemized schedule of qualified expenses...and compare that to the child support withholding. Money not claimed during the year would go into escrow for the child. Qualified Claims would be granted, but the folling year's taxes would be adjusted.

In such a system, neither parent would have to worry about the othe misappropriating funds becauce the state could chase them for fraud.

BTW, I do NOT believe a car is a valid "child expense". You are going to have to have a car ANYWAY. Do like other good parents do and choose one that works for the kids. Even the NCP will have to do that. Like CN, I see a large number of divorced moms driving around my town in SUV's because "they need them for the kids" (sheesh...gimme a break). I know men who are having keep the old car they drive pieced together with bailing wire. Guess what the kids have to ride in on the weekends he has them? You got it. Now, it might work if the CP was willing to SHARE the COMMON PARENTAL vehicle...

CN is right. Accountability is the problem. The system works real hard to hold deadbeat parents accountable for paying but does nothing to ensure those funds go to "real" child care expenses.

We've already proven on this post that different people have really different ideas about what should be a "real" expense. So, I think the state should step in.

Low

In most families I know...all of these are LUXURIES that should not be paid for out of child support.

Divorce is tragic. No doubt about it. But the sad truth is that splitting these parental funds WILL reduce their standard of living. The NCP should not be forced to support luxuries like you listed.

Now, either the NCP or CP have the right to save their money for luxuries that involve the kids. I would think good parents would do that. That would be a plus to maintaining a good working relationship with the ex.

But neither should be FORCED to finance a trip to Disney or new van.

In my state, the purpose of child support is to maintain the child's standard of living at the level at which it was while the parents were together.

"To provide the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the family been intact;"

http://www.mass.gov/courts/formsandguidelines/csg2002.html

If the parents could afford these "luxuries" before, then they are a perfectly acceptable use of child support. Child support is NOT intended merely to keep the children from freezing or starving to death. As you said, good parents do provide their children with more than just the minimum shelter and food if they can possibly afford it - and child support is intended to make sure that the NCP doesn't decide that he or she no longer has to do that

In most cases there is absolutely no reason that anyone's standard of living should go down after divorce - it is often just a matter of transfer of income to a new household. It is no more expensive for the NCP to live with the OW than it was for him to live at home.

Not to mention - a four bedroom home is hardly a luxury - how would you suggest stuffing my five girls and one boy and myself into a three bedroom home, when none of the bedrooms can hold more than one single bed? There are occupancy laws in my state limiting how many people you can stick in one tiny bedroom. And since when is a van a luxury? Certainly not when you have six kids. Even if you have only 3 kids, a five passenger car pretty much eliminates any chance of carpooling, or allowing your kids to take their friends along anywhere.

A couple of months after my kids' father got a brand new $32K SUV, the court ruled that he didn't have enough money to contribute a mere $1000 toward college expenses, even though sharing college expenses was specified in the separation agreement. Meanwhile I was the one driving the car with 150K miles on it.

It is my point that the current law is broken. Isn't it clear that the custodial parent will enjoy this standard of living along with the children. Isn't it clear that the NCP will have to sacrifice lifestyle to support this standard of living?

That's why it's broken. Children are not owed a luxurious standard of living, regardless of their previous circumstance. They are OWED basic support.

I still don't buy the car thing...you can buy a seven passenger vehicle, albeit a couple years older, for what you could by a new small car. Lots of Caravans out there off lease.

I know quite a few families in my area that get by just fine with six kids in three bedroom apartment. They discovered that "living rooms" work great as bedrooms too. However, with six kids involved, under my system, the CP would be receiving a significant percentage of the housing allowance that might facilitate a four bedroom dwelling anyway.

As I said. Divorce is tragic for everyone...even kids.

Would you have a problem with a system as I have described it above?

Under my system, you wouldn't have these fairness issues.

You would drive what you were able to provide for yourself. How would you feel if you had been the one to buy the $32k SUV and he had to drive the old car? That is the more common scenario in my area.

No, it's not. My kids father is better off financially than he was when he was at home. We certainly didn't drive $32,000 SUV's or go on cruises.


They most certainly are owed the standard of living they would have enjoyed had the WS not deserted them.

Every other custodial single mother I know is living in low-income housing or with her parents. On average, men's standard of living goes up and women's goes down after divorce:

"woman's loss was 27 percent while the man's gain was 10 percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades."

http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articles/divorce.html

Good evening all. I'm new to the board and actually only logged in because of this thread. Child support is an issue I'm interested in and as someone else said, people will always debate it.

CS is necessary, and as far as I can see, will never go away. It's intent is to help the CP have the resources to raise the children in as close to the same manner as predivorce.

CS is NOT for the exwife or exhusband!
CS is NOT to help pay for a mortgage
CS is NOT for the purchase of a vehicle

It IS for the extra space needed in a home or apartment for children's bedrooms and bathrooms.

It IS for upkeep, gas and deterioration of a vehicle because of the use for children.


Everyone needs to remember that regardless of whether you are talking about a CP or an NCP, the wages of the new spouse or significant other DOES NOT come into play in any statute in the nation (nor their standard of living at their home). What that means, is that your exspouse making 40K a year can leave you, marry someone earning 200K and not have to pay an additional cent in CS. Their standard of living of course will increase a lot, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to have yours increased.

The same thing applies if the CP marries someone who is a millionaire. That doesn't relieve the exspouse from paying his CS obligation.

College support is tricky and is dependent upon a lot of varying factors state to state and DD to DD.

Ditto for alimony.

Actually, that does come into play in Massachusetts. One of the child support guidelines (see link in my post above) is:

"To meet the child's survival needs in the first instance, but to the extent either parent enjoys a higher standard of living to entitle the child to enjoy that higher standard;"

Don't BOTH parents have these expenses? Why should one parent subsidize them for the other?

So, it appears that you feel the WS should be punished via child support? That's not what child support is about.

I disagree that children are owed luxuries. In an intact home, there is no system in place to ensure that selfish parents will spend their money on iPods for the kids. I don't see why the system should enforce that otherwise.

I've been reading along and have been avoiding posting details about my H's situation. It seems that we're talking about two different things, here. One is deadbeat parents, and the other is parents who want to do better, but can't.

My H makes $10,000 less than he did in the original support order. He paid the full amount up until last May (except for two months in 2003 when he was unemployed). He was then making so much less than the original order and needed a temporary lowering of support (temporary lowering, not stopping it). He got legal advice from the family court (free advice through the government) to lower the amount to the guidelines for his salary. Once he got the legal advice, he lowered the amount he was paying to the guideline amount. He paid the full amount up until then because he feared the ramifications of not doing so... and it seems he was right to be concerned.

This month he was served by the Family Responsibity Office (we live in Ontario, Canada). Until the case goes to court, he must pay the higher amount, and it will now be garnished from his paycheck, including the arrears ($1,200). He was told this process could take up to 6-8 months.

As I said earlier in this thread, we've been on the brink of homelessness, and three years ago *were* homeless. I've worked part-time, while actively searching for a full-time job, making minimum wage. Our car engine blew up in January, 2005, and we haven't had the money to fix it. He's bankrupt, though hasn't been able to pay off the trustee, so the discharge is unconditional.

He works full-time at a job in his field, making (as I said above) $10,000 less a year than he did before. The job he had in the beginning closed it's doors. It had nothing to do with him. He floundered trying to find another job, but took whatever he could get in the meantime. He paid his support, though he was making far, far less than the guidelines. Finding a second job is impossible for him, as his hours vary... not to mention the difficulties with transportation.

We can't afford a lawyer, and the legal aid that's free gave him the wrong information last year, which is why he's in the position he is right now. (He's checked with three lawyers, all who charge $200 hr. or over).

So, my H is sitting at the kitchen table filling out a mountain of paperwork. He had to take time off work to get it, time off work to get advice (and can't get help to fill it out, but can get advice once it is filled out), and time off work file it. He will need to take more time off of work to go through the process. He has to pay for service of paperwork and other "incidentals" that add up. The garnishment could lose him his job, that is if the time taken away from the job alone doesn't. Time off work may not seem like that big of a deal to others, but consider he needs to take the bus to wherever he goes - and it's not just nipping up to the courthouse - it's an hour or more each way.

It's as if he were a deadbeat dad. He wasn't, and isn't.

I read xpbc's post about paying for her H's CS, and I nodded in numbed understanding. I can imagine this is the kind of thing she's trying to avoid. Saying that her H isn't a man for not taking care of it makes me very sad. I don't know about Westley, but my H is every bit a man and father. He loves his kids and wishes he had more to give, wishes he could see them more (he can't get to them without a car - they live an hour away) and could be there for all their moments, big and small.

My H and I have made mistakes, some grave. We've suffered and struggled through many. It isn't his kid's fault, nor my kid's fault that things aren't better. Most parents will do the best they can... and sometimes the best is not good enough.

*As a final note: The FRO situation transpired in the last week... since I wrote the posts before. My feelings, at heart, remain the same. Children first.

$1,200?? only CS? or alimony too?

If only CS (how many kids?), his salary must be quite high to be 'homeless', more than $100K... according to the law here (Ont.)...
<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I agree.

NCP should provide all the best for his kids without being forced to do so.

Isn't it sad that the law/state has to determine how much a parent should give for their kids...

B2Myself,

My H was making $40,000 at the time of agreement, $30,000 now. He has two children.

Alimony was the house in lieu of monthly... and he took over a lump sum of debt (his mother took out a mortgage loan to pay)... he pays his mother's mortgage payment now, too. She's on the brink of repossession.

The $1,200 is the arrears of child support - $200 less than agreement a month since May, last year. He paid the rest monthly.

So, $1,200 is not just CS, it's his mom's mortgage included?
For the house his mother will repossess?
(Taking lump sum must be used for something else, and now he's repaying his mother...?)

According to tables, CS for $40K and two children is $570/mth (17% of his income).
For $30K, CS is $446/mth.

I guess, $1,200 now for he wasn't paying CS on time (approx. $500/mth)?

"To meet the child's survival needs in the first instance, but to the extent either parent enjoys a higher standard of living to entitle the child to enjoy that higher standard;"


Nellie, you are confusing the language in the statute. It is referring to the "higher standard of living" of the NCP, IF that is the EARNINGS of the NCP, not of the stepparent. Legally, the court can't make the stepparent pay anything towards children that aren't theirs unless they adopt them. Think of it this way, if your exh were living with millionaire parents, his standard of living would be much higher, but the court could not force the grandparents to give the children a dime of their money. Some judges and attorneys might try to do something illegal in this regard (I've seen lots of DD that had illegal items in them!), but if the NCP has a good attorney and fights it, it would be overturned.

Loworbit,
I know what you are saying about the two households. I didn't say it was correct. I said it was the law. Unless a NCP has significant time with their children, they do end up subsidizing the CP for bedrooms, upkeep on vehicles and such.

B2Myself,

He was paying $600 a month for CS and $500 a month for his mother's loan. He was advised to lower the CS by $200 a month when he was making $26,000. He paid $400 a month since May, plus tried to keep up on his mother's mortgage.

He got a new job four months ago, and now makes $30,000. He is suppose to now pay $446 a month (we have the guidelines here, but I can't get to them right now, but your figure sounds right). He will be paying $600 a month until the case goes to court, via the FRO and garnishment. And he'll be paying his mother's loan, if possible. He's been paying $120 a week on that. The arrears are for CS only, and will no doubt be added to the CS.

I was not exaggerating or imagining our homelessness situation. We were evicted from our apartment and spent six months apart - he in his mothers unfinished basement in a corner on a twin bed, me in my parents house 4000 miles away. We lost everything. We had just begun to rebuild when I returned 6 months later. My H had just bought a car (an 80's model Dodge Shadow)... and the week after I returned we were sitting at a stop light when we were hit from behind. Totalled the car and I dealt with a 'frozen shoulder' for over a year.

We are two months behind on our rent, mother is two months behind on her mortgage - he pays one, then the other, over and over. Robbing from Peter to pay Paul, is what I think is said about these types of situations.

I've practically written our budget here. We have no bills except utilities and the internet, which is due to be cancelled for non-payment. We have no credit cards, no cell phones, no car, no insurance, no clothing budget, and very little food budget. Laundry is even a luxery at times, as it costs $40 a month to maintain.

I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for us. This situation came about as a result of some VERY, VERY poor decision-making and "faith" in people and systems who have let us down. We don't expect handouts or charity. I'm sharing this because I think that sometimes we forget that there are father's who ARE doing the best they can, despite some fairly big odds. And second wives and step-mom's are not always money-hungry ________'s who are trying to take money out of children's mouths.

nb... sorry... this became too personal... I don't feel comfortable... didn't ask to know your finances... but I just wanted to prove my point...
and my point is - CS ITSELF (in most of cases) is NOT so high as NCPs say.

E.g. (sorry to go back to your case) your H pays for his mother's loan. (I don't get why, but it is not important for CS I'm talking about), and that leaves him with less money for himself (and you)...

Also, $30-40K per year less CS of $6K per year would leave him (for himself) with $24-34K per year... enough for not to be 'homeless' nor starving, correct?

And that is my point - ONLY CS doesn't make SO much difference in NCP's financial position AS they usually talk about.

Not because of CS? Or I'm wrong?
(No details needed, dear, just eventually confirm it is not because CS, for CS is the theme of this thread (and not other loans they contribute to our poor financial situations, all of us have them...) and CS is what I write about)...


I do feel sorry...
But, again... shouldn't $24K per year plus a bit you earn cover these basic needs?
And that house loan he's paying... isn't it a kind of investment? or previous debt? although, in any case, I don't see correlation with CS...


I swear, writing about this has nothing to do with any "X" or their 'new' spouses.
For, you know, I can be 2nd wife too... actually it's very possible, in my age...) but my opinion about CS and ANY parent's obligations for their own children would never be different.

My last word, because it HAS become too personal, I fear.

My H continued paying his CS, and his mother's loan (which was taken out to pay his ex as *part* of the 'in lieu of alimony' payment, along with giving her the house)...

...and we went without...

Do I blame the CS? No.

What bothers me is that because of some "bad apples" (as with soooooooooo many other situations)... my H has now been put into the system, as a deadbeat dad would be, and could lose his job for being garnished. All of this happened without his knowledge, while he was doing his best to keep up, and we were falling behind because we both feel so strongly about keeping up with the child support.

I haven't, and won't discuss the other aspects that have been discussed in this thread (how support is spent, etc.)... because that's not my business or my intent in sharing our story. I am sharing to say, as I did already (but it bears repeating)... sometimes... the NCP is doing his (usually, it is the father) best to provide for his children, but falls short, for whatever reason. That doesn't mean he's a bad person, a bad father, or a deadbeat.

I will bow out of this discussion for now... I truly just wanted to share it as an illustration of what can happen to *some* fathers who are doing their best... because I think that they are (too often) not heard.

And that's all I wanted to hear.


I did not do that either.
Believe it or not I'm even more tough on CP's spending CS for any other purpose but for children's needs.


And I understand that... that doesn't make him bad father or bad person, I agree.
Maybe just the one who makes poor financial decisions... like taking a loan from the bank and you already have one you're struggling to pay off... well, no bank would give another loan, nor it'll forgive the previous one... so, what you do if not givind up new loan till you have money to pay off both...


Again, he earns less, he pays less CS, he has no employment, he pays nothing (in Ont.)
And he should strech as per his blanket's size... like all of us.

nb, please don't take it personally...
I can't help but be on children's side.
(Skipping CS payments... has the same meaning for me as 'I'd buy this for me and this month my child doesn't have to eat'...
Now, we can start with thread about CP's spending CS on her make-up... and you'll see me again, even in the worse light <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />)

... Just to add...

The first minute we become parent we take a "loan" to be paying off for at least next 18 years (or forever, in my case).
Taking all other 'loans' depends on that one, and that one should never depend on if taking the other ones...

nb,

I don't know your background, but you seem to me as an educated lady willing to work, and you might find this interesting - please read and if you think you could - try (I heard it's quite profitable, you don't need a capital to start with, they provide training and advertising, and it isn't so difficult to achieve...)

http://www.ejcareer.com/ca/

Regards

Courts can impute income - if the NCP is living rent free and the OW (or his parents) are buying him expensive cars, the court can count the value of those items as imputed income, which would result in a much higher figure for child support. The grandparents/OW would not be paying the child support; the NCP would just be paying a high percentage of his income from his job - which makes perfect sense, since he wouldn't have to be spending any of it on housing or cars.

B2Myself - You are a sweetheart. I will look into that (I did take a peek - looks interesting!)... and I'll let you know what I find out. Thank you very much!

In Massachusetts, and apparently many other states, NCP's are rarely required to pay more than 40% of their income in CS, even if they have a dozen kids, because the courts want to ensure that the NCP has enough to live on. They don't, however, care if the kids do. I earn only a few thousand dollars a year more than NB's husband, plus a couple hundred dollars a week in child support, to support four kids on - and up until a couple of years ago I was supporting six kids on even less income. It is almost impossible to find any place for a family to live for much less than a couple of thousand dollars a month in this state. I am never going to retire - I will be in my mid-sixties by the time my youngest finishes college and I will be 94 by the time the education loans are paid off. Meanwhile my H has been socking away tons of money in his retirement plan, and I wouldn't be surprised if he retires before he reaches sixty.

And no, I don't think CS should be for "punishment" - but I think that is a very appropriate reason for alimony.

You are welcome, nb.

If you are good in selling, a friend of mine has this as a part-time job
http://www.usana.com/en/index.shtml
She earns $400-500 per month working 5-6 hrs per week.

and on this page you can have other opportunities, you can work from home, and be pretty independent (flexible hours)
http://top.dergo.com/ODP/index.cgi?base=%2FBusiness%2FOpportunities%2FNetworking-MLM%2F

Yes, I'd like you to let me know if some of this worked for you. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Same here, in Ontario.


I was curious and analysed CS Tables (for Ont.)... and look at this:

NCP's salary...1 child...2 kids...3 kids...4 kids

$30K/yr..........10%......17%.....23%......27%
$70K/yr..........10%......16%.....21%......25%
$100K/yr..........9%......15%.....19%......23%

I thought % are the same... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />
And more income less %?? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Anyway... max. 27% (for FOUR kids) . (They don't even have CS for 5 and more... all over 4 is 4? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> i.e. if you want to know, "get in touch with the Department of Justice Canada"...)

Those Ontario percentages are on gross income and not the net income. Also in May they are apparently moving to a "6 or more" column. But I don't know enough about Canadian taxes to comment specifically on the impact.

However, I did check the MA guidelines which are also based on gross income, and they also adjust +10% when the oldest is a teenager. It's really a slap and an insult to base CS on the gross because the NCP doesn't get any deductions or exemptions or child care credits, despite paying at least a share through CS. Running the numbers for me and my ex through their Web site, I find that my CS would go up 35% if I lived in MA. As I mentioned earlier, our net incomes have already been equalized as it is.

The MA system is punitive. 40% of gross income would be crushing, leaving NCP with maybe 20%-25%. It's not 60% left over for the NCP because of the taxes. That's why some people go bankrupt or worse.

As mentioned earlier, I feel that mandatory CS is mandatory (sorry, couldn't resist <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />). But at least use the right numbers.

... one more thing, under the MA system I would pay 46% of net for 3 kids.

Someone mentioned CS as punishing a WS. Sometimes it's the BS who has to pay CS.

So not only do we not get to see our kids everyday, but we are forced to give money, with no accountability to a former spouse who has demonstrated they are not trustworthy.

FWIW, I pay $1000/month for one child.

T

Not correct.

If CS % applied to your gross income of $30K, (for four children), it's 50% left over to you (meaning, you eat and dress like two people <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> or like four people if your XW doesn't provide for them too);
if applied to net income (after taxes, so you won't have them paying after, from net-CS <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />), it's 56% left over for you.

And if this 6% makes someone bankrupt... I offer free financial advise. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />




That should be my line. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The NCP does in fact get exemptions for half of the children in Massachusetts, even if the CP is paying the vast majority of their support and all their college expenses. I can not even take education credits for some of my kids because he gets the exemptions.

I read that Massachusetts has fairly high child support for one child, but is one of the lowest in the country for several children. If you have two children the child support increases by 2 percent, and another 2 percent for the third, and after that, NOTHING.

In addition, child support is reduced by the ratio of the (income of the CP - 20000)/(total income of both parents). Therefore, if each parent made $50000, the child support would be only 70% of what it would have been if the CP were earning less than $20,000.

You're not figure the tax correctly, even on the $30K gross (which I don't think you mentioned before). Start with 7.65% FICA/Medicare, then add his federal and state income tax with proper filing status and exemptions. It's not going to be 10% on $30K gross, as you claimed.

The numbers I gave you are from an actual calculation for my case and includes the MA income adjustment.

[color:"green"]I just wanted to say that I hoped no one thought that I was calling Westley less than a man for not paying child support.

I understand that he pays child support.
I understand that he pays more support now than he might legally be obligated to pay.
I understand that PB and her family may be suffering because Westley pays the same CS and makes less money.

The criticism was directed at Westley for not going to the court and making sure that the support was lowered to reflect his actual income.

PB should not have to suffer because Westley is not taking care of his obligation to her and their family by not fighting the amount of his obligation.

That being said I believe that a NCP should be held financially responsible for their children. I understand that if the CP is enjoying a nice life style while the NCP suffers that this probably creates hard feelings. It does seem punative.

And there are CP that spend money frivolously.

But in general, why would you not feel happy knowing that your children are benefitting from a better standard of living? If the CP takes them to Disney, why wouldn't you try to feel happy that they were able to go? Give them cameras and have them take pictures.

I say this in spite of the way my own daughter was treated. I paid $100 a week support on a salary of $27,000 a year and an OLDER child to support living with me. My daughter never had new clothing unless I bought the clothing. Her father lived with his parents and had no living expenses. In order to let my daughter have the joy of new clothing without the bad feelings that would have come from harrassing her dad or talking about how her dad never bought her clothes with all the money I sent him, I just did what I could to let her be happy and not guilty.

Feeling angry at her dad would not have changed the circumstances. Helping her to enjoy anything she could enjoy without guilt was (I felt) my job.

V. [/color]

Why not stop taking daughters away from Dads simply based on gender.

You can say go to court all you want, but the fact are, many qualified, non-abusive men, like me can pay 10's of thousands of dollars and still only see our daughters part-time, and have to pay a WS ex-wife we cannot trust CS.

Supporting my daughter is not punishment, losing my daughter 24 days a month is punishment for a crime my ex-wife committed.

Who is going to fix that wrong?

T

I had an affair and left him. I didn't leave him for the OM. Then, at a later date, I remarried, and it wasn't the OM. Yeah, actually I can blame him for questioning my judgement because where my kids are concerned I've always put them first and he knows this. This is just another way at which he wants to "get back" at me.

I told him to go ahead and pay it to the school- I don't care as long as he pays it. He pays it late though and I constantly get late notices. So, he gets a break on his CS and I still get past due notices, but better him be late with the school than with me, because he'd end up in legal trouble.

[color:"green"] EE,

Sorry for your pain - this sounds like you have not been treated very fairly.

Honestly - my daughter's dad took her from me because he had family to give him money for nasty lawyers.

He then resumed a single life, leaving our daughter with his parents while he went out every night. She was neglected.

A lot of dads are good with their kids - just as a lot of moms are good too.

I would much rather share time with dad and get a break for myself once in a while than be a single parent.

V.[/color]

[color:"purple"]
I understand, V. I am frustrated with him about that as well.

He doesn't want to deal with Friend of the Court, for one ... however ... knowing his ex, there would be drama, and she would involve his daughter, in negative emotional ways, if he successfully got it reduced.

So I understand WHY he's so hesitant to get it fixed, but it still frustrates me. She expects a certain amount of compliance from him, and being a conflict avoider, he usually delivers. I've been the first person to come along in his life and say it doesn't have to be that way ... with small victories, but a lot of accomodations still being made.

The talk of late has been, once again, her coming to live with us, as she has been "uncontrollable" at home and school. Fortunately, her time spent with us (alternate weekends) has been fairly quiet lately. I know it wouldn't stay that way if she were here 24/7 but I always knew that might be an option someday.

Sorry, I'm going off topic on my own thread. LOL
[/color]

Coach,

I'm sure you're a great Mom. You say you always put your kids first . . . I'm going to play Devil's advocate here for a minute: could you explain to me how having an affair and breaking up your kid's family . . . how does this mesh with putting the kid's needs first? Affairs are the most selfish thing that a married person can do. If you were in an affair, obviously at that time your kid’s needs were not your first priority. . . the affair was.

I'm pretty sure this is how your X views your behavior. I know you left the marriage because you thought it was the best thing to do. I don't even want to go there; I'm sure he was a perfect ogre and deserved to be treated the way he was. I will say that most kids don't care if their parents are 'happy', they want their parents together. Breaking up the family probably wasn't putting the kids first (unless he was abusing them and maybe he was.) I guess what I'm trying to say is the your X's take on the marriage, his reality of what happened probably isn't the same as yours. I think that he probably has reason not to trust you. The logical extension is that he probably doesn't trust you with his money.


Buttercup . . .


I'm sorry about the off-topic stuff as I am one of the major culprits. Here let me reframe the conversation. I know the W. doesn't want to deal with the CS agency, but if he cannot make the CS payments it is his responsibility to deal with it. There are so many things in this life that I don't want to do, but I have to do. Why are things so different for Wesley?

If he doesn't deal with this your marriage is going to be strained. If you deal with it for him I think that you better get used to doing for him things that are his responsibility, but for what ever reason, he chooses not to attend to. While saying this I will admit that I would probably make the payments too for a while. At first it is helping after a while it is just enabling poor behavior.

For years I worked on a marriage and he didn't. YEARS. I had almost a complete nervous breakdown and then had a very very short fling which I ended almost immediately. The marriage was broken beyond repair before the affair. I fail to see how one mistake that I made can outweigh years and years of me doing the right thing and being a good mother.

Was the affair selfish?? You betcha. Was it a mistake??? Completely. I just cannot imagine why he thinks it's okay to punish his children for my actions??

My point in this is I don't care whether or not he trusts me- his trust shouldn't be dependent on how he takes care of his children financially. Those were marriage issues which are over. All that matters now is that we are both parents to these children. He should support them because it's the right thing to do and he makes three times the money I do. Period.

Coacheswife, He doesn't see it as punishing his kids.

You broke the trust, and it's your job to earn that trust back, period.

I suspect you two disagree on some parenting issues. So perhaps what you call punishing the kids is simply a disagreement on parenting matters.

I agree with what you quoted, you each have your own perspective. You want him to make the same decisions with HIS money as you would.

There is a short word for that, control.

Telling someone what they SHOULD do is a disrespectful judgment. You cannot force, control, or make him do anything, but you can control your behavior, including stopping the DJ's about your children's father.

T

There is a Federal Law prohibiting the amount of CS that can be taken from an NCP.

"Courts can impute income - if the NCP is living rent free and the OW (or his parents) are buying him expensive cars, the court can count the value of those items as imputed income, which would result in a much higher figure for child support. The grandparents/OW would not be paying the child support; the NCP would just be paying a high percentage of his income from his job - which makes perfect sense, since he wouldn't have to be spending any of it on housing or cars. "

We are saying essentially the same thing. You are using the wrong language. It has nothing to do with imputing wages. It has to do with the amount of his wage that can legally be taken because he doesn't 'have to pay for very much of his living expenses. Judge do take that into account and rightfully so. STILL, CP's DO NOT get any part of the new spouses or significant others income.

If you have a man making 40K a year and living with a person who is making 500K a year, the CP would gain SOME CS from this situation. But not NEARLY ENOUGH to make their standard of living anything close to what the father is living in!!! The reason is you can only take into consideration the wages the father is actually making. And face it, at 40K a year, with the limit by the Federal government, you aren't going to be living well off of CS.

Did someone say that CS is a way to make a person pay alimony? The two are legally not the same thing. CS is only for the children. Alimony is only for the exspouse. The IRS would take you to the cleaners (and jail!) if they caught a judge and lawyer hiding alimony in CS as this is against the law.

Somewhere I thought I had posted about MA child support model and how it is way out of line with the nation. Now I don't see the post. Maybe I didn't post it right?

Anyway, MA is still an "Obliger model" state. Most states have moved away from the model and have gone to "Income Shares" which makes both parents responsible financially for their children. Look for all states to go this way in a very short time. It's a much fairer system for fathers. Mother's wages are being imputed the same as father's wages. Even if they stayed home during the marriage, they are required by the family courts to get a 40 hour a week job at their education and skill level, so as to contribute financially to their children's cost of rearing. Unless of course they are independently wealthy, then they just have to contribute their share of the money each month.

I don't care anything about earning his trust back, I'm not married to him anymore. Besides, no matter what I ever do, he's only going to see it as my fault, which is wasn't- both of us contributed to the demise of the marriage.

I just expect him to treat me with a certain amount of respect as their mother, just like I treat him with respect as their father.

He needs to provide for them and not spend all his money on his own clothes and hobbies, which is what he does now. This is a man who wouldn't give his own children lunch money but preferred for them to go without so I'm not going to sit here and debate who is the better parent.

As long as he provides for them, I couldn't care less what he does with the rest of his money but just as I put them first financially he should too. It's not a DJ to expect him to do that, IMO.

I'm sorry, I don't see a lot of respect for him in what you write. You write a lot about what he SHOULD do, how he wasn't a good husband and complaints about how he lives.

Those are all DISRESPECTFUL judgments.

I'm not saying he doesn't do them as well, but I doubt you will get much respect, even as the mother of your children with him as long as you speak disrespectfully about him.

T

I don't speak ill of him to my children or in their presence.

I'm confused- is this NOT a forum to talk about divorce and the aftermath?? Should I be on here singing a pretty tune about how wonderful he is??

I'm fairly certain I'm not the only person on here who bashes their ex. I think you have a problem with it because I was the WS, and not the BS. If I had been the BS and I was on here posting about how horrible he was and all of that it would be fine.

No, it's not about that. I just have a hard time with what appears to be a double standard. You want him to respect you, but you speak in disrespectful terms about him.

Please drop the DJ assuming you know my motives as well.

Even if you are not saying it to his face, a DJ is a DJ.

So I respectfully ask that you not speculate about what I may have problems about, and simply ask me. I'll tell you why, no need to guess (and be wrong about it.)

T

The only difference between the way Masschusetts computes the support order and the "income shares" model is that Massachusetts incorporates a $20,000 disregard for the custodial parent (of either sex).

In most states, the guidelines provide additional child support for five or six children. A study of Massachusetts child support recommended that for six kids the child support order be 133% of that for three kids. I could have done a lot with an additional $70 a week.

The report also indicated that the custodial parent pays a disproportionately high percentage of the child care costs in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts is out of line all right - it is horrible for custodial parents who have more than one child, or who have kids in child care.

As I understand, c.wife wants him to respect her as the mother, as she respects him as the father.

Same here.
He's better father than he was when we were married (spends more time with our son, more patient), and I cannot object, in general!!, his fatherhood.
And he gained some respect from me.
In front of our son, he gets full respect from me.

My advise to you would be - try to see your x 'two ways' - as the mother and as the ws, and give respect according to what she deserves. Now you are divorce, she should be just the mother of your children; she-ws died together with your M...
(At least I see things like that... as a man and WS my x's dead, but he's very alive as the father of my son... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />)
(It'd be easier for you, therefore for your kids too, trust me... And you know what? Once you can do this, it'd mean you are totally - healed!)

"The only difference between the way Masschusetts computes the support order and the "income shares" model is that Massachusetts incorporates a $20,000 disregard for the custodial parent (of either sex). "

Not really. The models are totally different.

MA "obliger model" uses only the NCP's wage and calculates cs as a percentage of this wage.

An "Income Share" model is much more complicated with many steps involved. It starts with both parents incomes (imputed for nonworking parents) and then continues from there. It is built to be very specific to each case and children's individual needs. It is also built to ensure that CP's aren't getting hidden alimony in the CS.

No, it does not just use the NCP's wage. It adjusts the child support based on the CP's income, after a 20K disregard.

If you disagree with my statement in the previous post, argue with the author of "Economic Analysis of the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines," (11/15/2005) who said:

"If Massachusetts eliminated the disregard, the impact of the custodial parent’s income on the support award amount would be the same as that of the Income Shares approach."

www.mass.gov/courts/reporteconomiccsg0106.pdf

I may not agree with all of the author's recommendations, but, with a PhD in economics, I suspect she has a pretty good handle on the definition of "Income Shares."

Nellie, did you even read what you just cut and pasted? LMAO!!!

You pasted this:
"If Massachusetts eliminated the disregard, the impact of the custodial parent’s income on the support award amount would be the same as that of the Income Shares approach'

That MEANS that MA doesn't have an INCOME SHARES MODEL! I looked up their code and they are a hybrid state, using part of a couple different models.

Again, an Income Shares Model ONLY takes into consideration the wages of the NCP.

You like to argue don't you? Was that a problem in your failed marriage?

Splitting hairs: "the impact of the custodial parent’s income on the support award amount would be the same ..." is correct. But MA still begins with an obligor percentage of gross income, then adjusts afterwards. This is called a "hybrid" model in that PDF report and many other places. If they removed that disregard, it would still be a hybrid model.

Income shares begins with a child-rearing cost estimate, and that cost estimate is based on both incomes (MA doesn't do this). Then that cost is allocated to the parents by income shares (MA does something like this, after the disregard, which actually helps the custodial parent).

I read the PDF and thought it was a pretty good summary, although it does not cover my case and that opens up some questions about the recommendations. It's ridiculous that most states adopt guidelines knowing there are gaps, when there are no defensible reasons for leaving those gaps. It sounds like Nellie2's main beef (other than not having enough income) is that MA doesn't adjust for 4+ kids. They focused on the 1 or 2 kid case which, they claim, is more common in CS cases, and they clearly treat those custodial parents better than other states, especially at middle and high income levels. Plus they have that teenager adjustment. There was no reason to leave out the high-kid cases.

HappyOne: this statement of yours above was also incorrect "MA obliger model uses only the NCP's wage and calculates cs as a percentage of this wage." Because MA has a second hybrid step that considers CP income.

And then you mis-spoke again: "Income Shares Model ONLY takes into consideration the wages of the NCP", where you probably meant to say obligor model.

My point would be to tone it down.

Very true Tmmx! I made the assumption (bad) that MA was an obligor model state, which it turns out it isn't. Yes, typed it backwards. Obligor should replace income shares.

Tone what down?

Well, Westley is caught up now ... his income tax refund came back $1K less than anticipated. He called and got an appointment to have it reviewed too. He goes in April 17.

This is progress. Now he just has to commit to paying weekly. (Since he is a partner in a business, there is no way to take it out of his paycheck.)

FoC screwed up my ex's payroll deduction, so now they are taking out too much. I'll get paid for a while, then nothing for a while, until they get it straight again. *sigh*

I am divorced dad (about to go through a second divorce).

But my "1st Ex" and I remain good friends. We married WAY too young and we realized that we just were not married material. During the separation and divorce, we felt it was important to remian friends for the sake of our two kids.

I was paying child support before the D was final and I paid more when it was final. I never felt angry or robbed by it. I think CS should be enforced. I seen and know deadbeats and it makes mad. It tends to give a generalization on single dad's.

I could find loop holes to make me paying CS more cumbersome, but why? I would hurt my children and they didn't make bad decision of marriage. We did. It is not there fault.

I get my kids every other weekend and one night during the week on paper, but since I am not a deadbeat and my ex and I get along, I could call any night and get them provided that they have no activities going on.

Anyways I pay CS and PROUD of it.

I never said that Massachusetts did use an Income Shares model, as you can see if you read what I said in an earlier post, reposted directly above.

If you are going to make disrespectful comments such as "LMAO," the least you can do is read carefully and research thoroughly before posting.

tmmx,

You are correct that my major objection is the fact that the guidelines do not provide additional child support for 4 or more children. Also, according to the report:

"Two and Three Children: Mid-Income Range ($281-$750 per week). Massachusetts is too low relative to the national estimates of child-rearing expenditures."

I do not know how, exactly, income shares states decide whether the CP (or the NCP for that matter) are holding a job appropriate for their education or skills, but I would hope that they take into account the fact that being a single parent severely limits your job options and salary. I can not go to work early or leave late, because I have child care responsibilities. I can not work in a job with an inflexible schedule, because I am the one who takes the kids to the doctor, the dentist, and the eye doctor (for even four kids, this amounts to a minimum of 16 visits a year, if no one gets sick). I am the one who goes to the teacher conferences, takes the kids to their activities, leaves work to come pick them up from school if they get sick, and stays home with them if they are sick. I am the one who almost always brings them back and forth to college. In the over four years that I have worked at my current job, I have not taken a single sick day for myself, or a single vacation day that was not necessary for child-related responsibilities (except for about a week to paint my house). The NCP does not have any of these responsibilities; in my case, he spends about 1.5 hours a week with the kids.

Sorry, Chris...I just saw this...


When my ex and I first separated...legal separation was required in the state where we lived. The support was listed in our separation agreement.

When we divorced, my ex did not show and the judge refused to order any support because my ex was not there. I listed him with the state (I got state assistance) but they never got money from him either.

After that...I did not have the resources to get the support court ordered. And then my ex was in jail for awhile and I did not see the point.

My ex is now remarried with a new baby, and lives 30 minutes from us (we've always lived far away). He's seen our son I think twice since he moved here. He still does not *offer* the support and I still don't really see the point in going after it since while I make very little--he makes even less. I believe he was Mister Momming it for awhile with the new baby.

My point, though, was that my ex was not required to pay the support (since it was never actually ordered by the courts)...and he certainly never offered it freely.

[color:"green"]Just for everyone's information - every state that I know of offers free legal services for getting child support. All you have to do is go down to the county courthouse family center and fill out the forms to get support ordered by a judge.

I understand that you can't get blood from a stone Aislinn, I just don't want anyone here to feel that it is hopeless to try and get assistance for your children's sake from the other parent who is obligated to help out.

V.[/color]

When we were waiting for our turn in court, the woman before us was granted a divorce without her husband being present. She was not interested in pursuing support. The judge acted like she was nuts. He awarded the state's required minimum support order. In our state, you have to pay a minimum amount (although it is not very much) no matter what.

In many cases, if the NCP doesn't pay support, the CP ends up on assistance - from a public policy standpoint, it doesn't make sense to let the NCP get away without paying, because it often means that you and I are supporting the children through our taxes.

I just did my taxes, and I am supporting a bunch of folks by my taxes, if I look at federal, state and payroll taxes alone, I'd say a number of people are living quite well at my expense.

That doesn't even take into consideration, sales, property, excise and motor fuel taxes I pay after all the others are taken out.

I don't even get a Christmas card from all these folks I'm supporting, LOL

T