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...