OK...I'm going through a divorce now, will likely be CP, and to my great surprise, c/s is turning out to be an issue. I'm mostly just shocked that stbx is even considering going with the state minimums, and in visiting c/s boards, I'm surprised by how many people are trying to get support orders lowered. Shoot, one of the ads on this page says "lower your child support." I think it's terribly sad.
I support myself and if necessary could support our daughter alone, so that's not an issue. I wouldn't have had a kid if I hadn't been pretty certain of my ability to do that. And I certainly don't expect stbx to support me. But I thought the point of having the kid is that you give the kid everything you can. If the kid needs money for activities, college, whatever, you don't wait for someone to drag you into going out to earn it -- I'd think, well, you just go do it.
My dad had a professional career, but when he wanted more money so my brother and I could do things, he drove truck early morning to make a few bucks on the side. His dad got up at 3:30 am and worked like a madman all day. I'm pretty soft compared to them, but plenty of 1:30 AMs see me up in the kitchen working on a freelance job or figuring out how to bump up the hourly rate, even though I know I'll have to be up by 7. I do that partly so my preschooler can have morning nanny, someone who'll actually pay attention to her, instead of having to be in fulltime daycare in a sea of kids. I want to make sure she can go to gymnastics, hockey, whatever activities are going to get her working and playing at something with some discipline and focus. She'll have significant college savings so that she doesn't have to walk out of college with a heavy debt burden. I'll have retirement savings so she doesn't have to try to support me as she's raising her own family. She's got an insurance trust in case something happens to me, so she'll be able to stay in her home and school, have college paid for, and have money to help her dad pay for nannies & household help. If I die, I don't want the rest of her life busted up, with her shuffled around among relatives feeling like a burden. Yes, it's a lot of money. That's what it costs to give a child good odds of a comfortable, healthy life, one where she can freely use her talents and gifts and make herself as happy & productive in society as she can.
Which I'd think is the goal, and which is why I need to get back to work now.
But please enlighten me. Why are you guys fighting buying life insurance -- possibly the cheapest insurance there is -- and paying for braces? Why not pick up another job?
As I said and as my husband feels there is nothing greater than being a parent. We love are children and work very hard to provide for them. My husband and I both have full time jobs and get up at 4 am every morning to deliver newspapers on top of our full time jobs. My husband pays $1200 a month for 5 kids and I recieve $366 from my ex for my 4 children. We cannot afford to pay for $10,000 worth of orthodontia work on top of the $1200 we pay already. She didn't get them braces because they medically needed them she did it because she does a poor job at parenting and does things like this to overcompensate for her lack of good parenting. Also, she doesn't get the kids what they need. She gets what she needs with the money we give her. All of the kids are in school full time and she is not working. There is no excuse why she can't. We do pay for extras or things that she doesn't get them. We do pay for extracurricular activities. We never deny them anything that is a need plus a few extras. Why do we pay for her to have a do things instead of the kids? Also, she knows that she doesn't have to pay for the majority of the braces, we do. She also claims all 5 kids at income tax time and recieves a minimum of $5000 each year while we end up having to pay in. Do you know who ends up paying for her devious ways? The kids, all of them. We can't afford braces for one of my biological (I hate putting it that way because they are all mine in my eyes) sons because he medically needs braces not cosmetically. We wouldn't deny them something they need. Anyway, she put 3 in braces at once and is working on the fourth. Who does that? I don't know many people that can afford that but somehow we are expected to because she is devious and loves to "stick it to us". You would not believe some of the things she has put our family through. Anyway, bottom line is that we love our kids, we live on four to five hours a sleep 7 days a week. If you knew us you would know that our kids come first and they are not pawns and that we would do anything for them. It is hard to know what is going on in someone's life or to truly know the situation just from a simple post. I came here to get suggestions. Trust me I pray every day that she will change and make everyone's life easier including her children. For the record, even her own parents agree and know that she is always up to no good and never does anything for the good of her children and loves others misery. I am happy that you have a good ex though. God Bless
I have been on both sides of the child support issue. I think that the guidelines are very unfair across the board. It varies according to the state you live in and that should not be. When you pay hundreds of dollars a month and then the BM asks for half a copay is just ridiculas. Child support is suppose to be HALF the amount to raise the child at the standards of living from when the divorce happens. Many CP's think that is it for ALL the costs involved. In my state, child support goes until 21 years old while in other states is goes to 18. My state also MAKES the NCP pay for their "share" of college PLUS child support. THe whole system is just not right.
You have great goals for your daughter and many CP's could only dream of providing all of that for their kids. Child support is for the bare essentials (foold.clothing, shelter) and not extra to save for college. It is great that you will not rely on child support for every day bills but MANY people can not do that....
"When you pay hundreds of dollars a month and then the BM asks for half a copay is just ridiculas."
No, that's half the noncovered cost. If you're splitting the cost of raising the child half and half, well, copays are part of the cost. If you're only paying hundreds a month, then probably you aren't paying half the real cost of raising the child. Maintaining the home, food, utils, medical, daycare, clothing, furniture, gas, dental, promotions foregone because you have childcare responsibilities, all these are fairly basic costs. I added up what my daughter costs monthly in dollars, not counting foregone income, but including med and daycare. She's healthy, we live in a cheap housing market with good public schools. For those essentials plus summer camp, one or two activities like music lessons, two plane tix a year, college savings, and scholarship-supplemented ed enrichment, the total is around $2K/month. Which is actually on the low end of the 'what it costs to raise a child to 18' calculators you can find online.
I view college saving as an essential. College is necessary to getting most jobs you can actually live on, the job market is more competitive than it was, and college is a lot more expensive than it used to be. I live in a college town, and I see a lot of very worried and exhausted 18-22 year olds accumulating major debt while working part-time and churning through school as fast as they can. That debt's going to keep some of them from going after the work they want to do, and will delay homeownership and families for many of them. It's not a nice thing to hang on a kid, especially if you don't plan on saving enough for retirement. Then the kid has to pay off school debt while raising a family and trying to help you out, too.
get away with paying nothing at all, then there are some NCP's that got raked over the coals and can barely provide for themselves. Are you aware that if these NCP's get a 2nd job to pay for CS, that income is ALSO subject to the CS guidelines? And if they have a vindictive CP who takes them to court for every last penny they have, then working a 2nd job does nothing but up their CS.
I am happy that you are trying to provide the best possible life for your daughter, but not everybody is as dedicated to their children (Sad...I know) and barely provide the minimum care for their children.
I'm a CP who does NOT receive CS on a regular basis. I am lucky as I have figured out how to survive with out it. Can I save for their college education? NO. Right now they need food, clothing and shelter over a savings account. I also feel that if it is something they want, that they should put forth some of the effort to get it. I have seen many teenagers who are handed things in life, not care about it because it was a given. My own little Sister (14 years apart) was that way. She basically grew up an only child so Mom and Dad were able to do more for her. Only now they realize they didn't do her any favors at all!! The rest of us kids (6 of us...she makes #7) had to learn that if there was something we wanted, we had to work for it and that in turn taught us to take better care with what we had. Lil Sis isn't that way at all. She thinks that it should be handed to her, she went to college and dropped out. She was given a car that she let all her friends drive and mess up. She gets in a tight spot financially because she just had to get a new outfit...so she thinks she can just call Daddy and he'll send her the $$ to cover the bills the outfit money was supposed to be for.
The most valuable lesson you could teach your daughter is to take pride in what she has and not to expect things to be just handed to her. Also, having Nanny's and that are fine, and if you're willing to work for it, that's fine to....but when does your daughter get to see YOU? Studies have proven that the more time you spend WITH your child, the better off that child is. Working to provide the BEST of everything is NOT necessarily the best thing. As I stated earlier, I'm a CP, I work 40 hours a week and make a good living (and no I didn't go to college...but still make more than the average US income...but I do talk of college to my children). Anyway, I don't normally get CS and it is virtually impossible for me to work a regular 2nd job because when would I have time with my children for 1, and for 2...I'd just be working to pay someone else to be with them. On occasion I will work a weekend to earn extra cash (in fact I did that this weekend) for things like Christmas, birthdays, etc....
Kids don't need the best of everything, the really need the best of YOU. We don't have much, but we do have each other and that's whats important!!!!
[em]Lucky
Lead your life so you wouldn't be ashamed to sell the family parrot to the town gossip.
- Will Rogers[em]
I work at home and frequently adjust my work schedule so I can work at night and spend time with her during the day. That way she gets to see me, and while the nanny is over, she can come visit me in my home office and I can take breaks to come play with them. I take her to gymnastics one morning a week, and every so often take mornings off to have a special breakfast out with her. We spend most of the weekend together.
There are ways to work these things out.
Yes, a second income will up the CS. That's the point, upping the CS to better provide for the child. And of course you can't just throw money at a child. There has to be teaching and parenting along with it, or they won't know what the money is worth. It's possible to do both at once. It happened for me, and it happened for many of my classmates at college, many of whom were from very well-off families.
It takes some imagination, is all.
>Yes, a second income will up the CS. That's the point, upping
>the CS to better provide for the child.
I have been following this thread with some disbelief! I am trying to determine where the original poster is coming from. Nanny, summer camp...etc.
I think most people that are trying to get a Child Support Order adjusted are those that have a difficult time making ends meet in their lives. I believe most that can pay child support do! Most that do not pay can not afford what has been ordered. The whole purpose of getting a second job is not to increase the amount to be paid in child support, it is to be able to put food on the table because of the child support order that is currently in place.
My ex is having trouble making ends meet. Has applied for food stamps, etc. This is all my fault. Her solution is to want more child support. I just make ends meet as it is. So to have to pay her more, I would have to work OT or get a second job. The results of this is the possibility of an even greater increase. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT WOULD DECREASE THE TIME I HAVE AVAILABLE TO SPEND WITH MY KIDS.
Let's face it. If a child is a child of divorce, they most likely not going to have a Norman Rockwell childhood. Where they once lived in a family that may have had 2 parents supporting a single household, they now have 2 parents trying to support 2 households, or in some cases, 1 parent trying to support 2 households. Kids don't "need" all the extra stuff that the orig poster talks about. Yes, they would like to have them, but "need" them, No! What a child needs is both parents that love them. Love is not shown by sending them to Summer Camp, and dance class, and having a nanny and sending them to college. Love is being there for them when they need you. Can't really do that if you are working a 2nd job, no can you?
For the person that wants the money to tell the other to suck it up and get a second job, because it is in the best interest of the child shows how narcisitic that person is. I think my child deserves this, so you need to go out and make more money. If you feel that it is that important, then you go out and get a second job!!!
I have a second job, and post-divorce it looks like I'll be providing 75+% of our income. I'm also in school doing PhD prepwork so that eventually the high-wage piecework is replaced by something high-wage with good benefits, security, and satisfaction for me, and I work it so that school pays for itself. I look for and go after high-hourly-rate work that I can do on a flexible telecommute schedule; next after that is high-wage flexible. I do a lot of the work after my daughter's in bed, when she wouldn't be spending time with me anyway. I'm also the one there with her when she wakes up in the middle of the night, in the morning getting her breakfast, taking her to gymnastics and watching through the parents' window (while working, yes, and it's annoying to try to work while the non-employed parents are talking, but that's what it is), taking her to daycare, taking her grocery shopping, making her dinner and eating with her, playing games with her in the bath, answering her questions ("Why are bananas this shape?" "How old is the sky?"), dancing with her, teaching her how to write her letters, taking her to church, etc., etc. I'm also careful to live in a safe, high-quality, low-cost town with good public schools. I don't date and I fit my socializing in with work and church, and I'm not planning on having more kids. I can swing college for one, but probably not two.
I am a tired lady. That's OK. I expect to be tired for a long time. She gets one childhood, and when she gets to adulthood I want her to be able to do whatever work she loves, instead of whatever work she has to do to pay off loans.
You know, there are people who go to other countries to work so that their children can have good, better-than-scraping by lives, college educations, etc. Really, I don't think this is such a big deal. You guys seem to me to be throwing up a lot of surmountable obstacles.
[em]"I'm going through a divorce now, will likely be CP, and to my great surprise, c/s is turning out to be an issue. I'm mostly just shocked that stbx is even considering going with the state minimums,"[/em]
Why would you be surprised? There's a reason you're getting divorced after all. Put the shoe on the other foot. If you are NCP, how much will you give your ex?
[em]"But I thought the point of having the kid is that you give the kid everything you can."[/em]
Give them everything you CAN, not everything. Not everyone has the skills to work like you do. Not everyone has the ability to do the type of work you do. Not all jobs pay really well but SOMEONE has to do them -- and those people might just have kids. Most of us cannot work from home OR rearrange our schedules on an hourly basis and still keep our jobs.
Everyone has their own definition of how best to raise a child and what a child "NEEDS". Yours is different from just about everyone I know, that doesn't mean you are wrong, or that I am wrong. Just that we have different opinions. My bet is that your stbx has a different opinion as well.
You know, I've read through your posts and you are coming across as being perfect and that anyone who doesn't believe as you do has something wrong with them. Perhaps you don't mean that, but it's certainly the impression you are giving. I suggest you re-read what you've written and look at it from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't believe as you do. Someone open-minded instead of judgemental.
[em]Lucky
Lead your life so you wouldn't be ashamed to sell the family parrot to the town gossip.
- Will Rogers[em]
I agree to split the costs but then split ALL the costs, not just the copays. I do not ask my ex to give me $7.50 (half co-pay) when he is pays child support. The bigger costs (daycare, big dentist bill) then we split. Activites-I talk to him and we see if we can both do it or if I can do it alone.
Housing costs should not be haved. You would need to a place to live. It is the child's portion of those bills and if you really added it up it would not equal the cild support guidlines (not in my case anyway...we chose to not go by guidelines but my actual costs).
By your numbers it cost your half for your child is $1000/month? If this is truem then you are VERY lucky because I know many people that barely clear that amount around here.
College costs-My state allows children from divorce to get "Support" from both parents BUT children from in-tact families can NOT. How is this fair? What you want to do for your own child or what you can afford it your business not the courts.
Many people in this country live paycheck to paycheck (me included!) and barely have a savings. Many CP/NCP's were living fine while together but then when the divorce happened and now they needed two "households" which makes money tight in both homes.
"Why would you be surprised? There's a reason you're getting divorced after all. Put the shoe on the other foot. If you are NCP, how much will you give your ex?"
Are you serious? How about everything I make beyond retirement saving and living expenses as skinny as I can make them, which -- in my case -- is pretty skinny? (I don't have family around here, or it'd be even less.) It's not giving it to my ex; it's giving it to my child. If I thought my ex wouldn't take good care of the money or use it for the intended purposes, I'd just structure the c/s so that all money above state min went to specific service providers (preschool, camps, etc.)
And yes, retirement saving is also part of providing for children. If we don't do it, they'll have to pick up our slack. Which is a lot more money and responsibility, for a lot longer, than it was for previous generations.
Yow -- at least I know the ex isn't thinking that way about it. He doesn't fear I'm going to spend her money on me.
Sorry if it comes across as judgmental. I'm just shaking my head at some of what I'm hearing here. If you can find your way to a message board and post messages like what you've got there, I guarantee you can do better hourly in the wee hours than delivering newspapers. Look around online, if you want.
I gotta get back to work. More tomorrow on this one, maybe. I'm serious, the obstacles I'm hearing here sound to me surmountable.
OK, gotta reply real quick:
"I agree to split the costs but then split ALL the costs, not just the copays. I do not ask my ex to give me $7.50 (half co-pay) when he is pays child support. The bigger costs (daycare, big dentist bill) then we split. Activites-I talk to him and we see if we can both do it or if I can do it alone."
I agree about splitting all costs, but if you pick up more than that, you short yourself on retirement saving. In the end makes retirement hard for you and the children, since they're the ones who'll have to decide how to support you if you need substantial help in old age. Meanwhile they'll have kids of their own to raise. Old women make up a very large percentage of poor. Caring for Mom/Dad over long declines is increasing source of stress/poverty/job loss for middle aged, leaves grandkids without college help. Being old is expensive here now, will get more so as baby boomers break the system.
"Housing costs should not be haved. You would need to a place to live. It is the child's portion of those bills and if you really added it up it would not equal the cild support guidlines (not in my case anyway...we chose to not go by guidelines but my actual costs)."
Agreed, child's portion. Have 3br house (2br, one office) with modest mortgage, exc. school down the street. Have added it up, and it still costs about $600/mo more than I'd spend on myself. Half of the overage seems fair, & that eats more than half the c/s min. True I live here; I also do the work of maintaining/cleaning, & protect his equity, will do the work of selling it in the end. No lasting benefit from the overage, either, as it's a young mortgage and nearly all the payment goes to interest, taxes, insurance.
WOW, some people really do see things as black and white and nothing else. I am assuming that you are talking about my second job delivering newspapers so, what is it that you suggest I do? After all, I came here for support and for some answers ,not to argue about who is the better parent. I don't think you read the entire posts anyway because then you would see that I am on BOTH sides of cs. I am divorced also and receive peanuts in child support and owed alot of back child support and will never see it. That is ok because I have spent the last 17 years sacrificing and giving my children everything I could. I want to because they need me and then I happened to meet the most wonderful man in the world and married him and his ex sees to it that she takes us to the cleaners even though we have the kids more waking hours than her. We do provide for their needs that she does not. If she doesn't get it then we do. We would never dream of making them go without. What it seems you are saying to me ( I apologize if I am wrong ) is that some children should go without and others should get everything. (remember I have four bio children that I support almost entirely) and when my husbands ex takes a good portion of what he earns then it is our household and the kids that live here that end up sacrificing. Also, if you read my post you would see that my husband's ex DOESN'T have a job. She spends her days running up bills she can't pay and then WE become responsible and ALL of our children end up sacrificing. One of my bio children NEEDS surgery and that is a priority NOT braces for cosmetic reasons (which he also needs medically). We could have worked on one at a time with the orthdontia work like most people not three and almost a fourth. She went on a trip recently. We certainly don't get that luxury. That is ok though because I would rather provide for my kids than worry about taking myself and my husband on a vacation. We will get that when they are grown which happens all too soon. I can also go back to school and have a career that I have always wanted, something I sacrificed so that I could work from home....yes I do that to.....12 hours a day (plus the paper route) and not have to miss all of their extracurricular activities.....we have lots with nine kids and they are all active....again something I can't get back later. I am a tired lady too but they are worth it and my husband and my step children are worth the awful ex we put up with. I am not trying to say I am superwoman because the majority of the people here are all in the same boat...that is why we come here. We are just looking at how we can keep from getting slapped around by her when we are good Christian parents who ALWAYS look out for the well being of our children and she uses them as pawns. We would gladly be primary of all of the kids and not ask her for a dime. I may not have given birth to all of them but they are all the same to me. My husband and I have discussed that many times that we would be primary of all and not recieve any cs. As I said, her own parents and sister agrees. We were informed about a little blog she had and she kept a good diary of where the child support went because she wasn't working....while my husband was in Iraq she took the cs and spent it at the bars, on little adult toys, on entertaing guys, buying new outfits for her excursions....she stated in the blog about how her daughter comented on it and all the while the grandparents had the kids most of the time because she denied me seeing them even though it was their wishes and they called me behind her back.....need I go on? He had a huge financial mess to clean up when he got back. Sorry about the long post but obviously it is hard to get a point across unless you do. I don't know why I bother anyway.....I only have one judge....God...you know because you said you go to church too....we have Him on our side. I wish everyone the best who reads these messages boards. Sometimes it feels so lonely in our struggles. If only we lived in a perfect world....God Bless you all!!
>And yes, retirement saving is also part of providing for
>children. If we don't do it, they'll have to pick up our
>slack. Which is a lot more money and responsibility, for a
>lot longer, than it was for previous generations.
>
>Yow -- at least I know the ex isn't thinking that way about
>it. He doesn't fear I'm going to spend her money on me.
So maybe the solution is to "structure" the child support so your ex is paying the state guidelines. Then when you both agree that something is needed for your child (something outside the day to day needs) , you can make those arrangements together. Then you can split the costs down the middle. And, when you can't agree, and your daughter is with you, you can be responsible for incuring those costs. When she is with your ex, and he wants to do something for her or with her, and you do not agree, he can incure the cost. That way you both feel like you are equally involved and equally responsible.
I am assuming you have 50/50 custody, and work together to make decision regarding your child.
Did you read the first and last paragraphs only?
What about grocery store checkers, stocker, etc.? People who have kids should NOT take those jobs?
What about the people who work in nursing homes? We NEED those people, yet they don't get paid much. Those people should NOT have kids, correct - they can't give them what you say kids need.
What about the people who are physically disabled and CAN'T work? Those people should NOT have kids because they can't provide them with what YOU think are the necessities?
Not everyone can get or have a high-paying job and quality of life is more important than quantity of stuff.
You don't live in the real world obviously and I hope like hell that it doesn't screw your child up royally. I live in a college town too and used to work at two of them (try 7 colleges within 15 miles) and I've seen SOOOO many kids who "have it all" and blow it all because they had no idea what the real world was like. In fact, I was one of those kids and it took me 10 years to get my head on straight and finish my degree, get my "dream" job, etc.
Protecting them from everything will not necessarily create healthy, happy adults because they won't know what to do when something bad does happen. And something bad will happen.
I won't be posting to this thread anymore, nor reading it, it's obvious that you are not willing to be open-minded, you just want to force everyone to believe the way you do.
[em]Lucky
Lead your life so you wouldn't be ashamed to sell the family parrot to the town gossip.
- Will Rogers[em]
Yeah, that's probably how it'll go. I'd prefer that we figure it up and do it legal, though, because otherwise I have no guarantee he'll pay. He might say that, say, music lessons are a great idea, pay for the first month, and then stand there turning his pockets inside out (he's got disability income of -- well, let's just say the amount that the insurance co. pays into his retirement account alone is more than he'll be paying in c/s monthly, and if he's off disability he's capable of making big bucks, just wants to switch to a low-pay career and go to school). Then I'm there stuck either telling the kid "no more music lessons", with the lesson attached that there's no point working at something because it's just going to get yanked, or paying for the whole thing myself.
I'll have primary care. Liberal visitation.
Hey, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be unsupportive. I'm aware you're on both sides. All I'm saying is that yes, there is freelance/WAH work available online that pays considerably better than paper routes do. If your prob is no money, that's a potential solution. I'm not a career service, but the jobs are there if you look for them.
Whether X works or not, or is a tramp or not, is, it seems to me, her problem. It doesn't change your hub's obligation to the kids, and though it may not seem so to you, $1200/mo for 5 is really not a lot. Average middle-class kid costs $200K to get to age 18, depending on cost of living where you are, and at that support level, your husband's contributing about $52K total, birth to 18, per kid. So at most about a quarter of the cost of raising them at what most would consider a good standard of living. Just talking about the money there and leaving aside all the other wreckage their mom brings in. I think a lot of these support conversations devolve into "but she could __________", and wander away from the idea that the support obligation is absolute. Has nothing to do with what the other parent does or doesn't, has or hasn't.
How is she able to run up bills you can't pay, btw?
I would never say some kids should go without while others get. I think that's wrong. I just believe in planning for these expenses and the possibility of divorce. In my 20s I saw a lot of friends end up in bad trouble when their husbands left them with little kids and no education, and it was hell. Decided I'd wait till I could do it reasonably on my own if necessary. Glad you have a wonderful hub.
Also glad you've made peace with your x's arrearages. I'd still be going after it aggressively till the expiration of the statute. To me it seems that belongs to the kids. Obviously you can't get blood from a stone but if he gets an inheritance or anything else down the line, it may be possible to get it for the kids.
That's pretty close. I'd say that if you know in advance that you can't give an ordinary child help beyond basics -- and that in fact you're going to have real trouble with even the basics -- you probably shouldn't have kids. Love is great, but the kids still have to eat, live in safe places, get whatever help they may need, and compete in the end with strong, healthy kids who've been to school and been free to work hard there & develop their talents. I think you have to ask yourself what kind of a life you're setting a kid up for, and if it's not too nice, well, you don't have to do it. It's not like we're short on people.
Nobody here has talked about protecting kids from everything. I think you're reading in to what I'm saying. The majority of the have-it-all kids do very well for themselves, btw. I'm thinking now of my college friends; most are high-income with multiple degrees, successful businesses or practices. Most enjoy their lives, and their struggles come from things like deaths of parents, not lack of health insurance or fear that their kids won't get basics.
OK, I gotta get back to work, yikes.
Any good financial planner will tell you, if you can't do both, to fund your retirement rather than fund your child's college education. This way your child won't be financially burdened with elderly parents who can't support themselves.
If you still want to help your kids maybe start an IRA for them instead of paying for college.
You seem to be confusing the legal aspects related to divorce with your own set of moral and ethical beliefs.
Legally CS will be calculated based on the state's guidelines. Legally that is all that the NCP is required to pay in support of their child. If the divorce agreement doesn't provide that the NCP contribute towards college or "extras" then he legally doesn't had to pay for them. There are a hand full of states that can order college support, but I don't know if you reside in one of them. Bottom line is the NCP is only legally required to pay what the CO requires him to pay. So long as the NCP is paying what he is court ordered to pay then legally all is as it should be, and the NCP is not a deadbeat. You may personally feel that the NCP should be paying more, but that gets back to your moral and ethical belief system which has absolutely no relevance here.
My advice to you is to make every effort possible to effectively co-parent with your Ex. Allow him to be an active and participating part of the decision making process related to the parenting of your child. Allow your Ex to be active in your child's life. Doing this will create an environment where your Ex will want to help pay for extras.
Now on to the moral and ethical issues. Every person has their own individual moral and ethical belief systems of how to raise a child and be a good parent. One person's belief system is no better or worse than another person's belief system. They are just different.
The CS guidelines is merely a suggestion of how much should be spent in raising a child. In reality some parents will spend more than this suggested amount and other parents will spend less than this suggested amount. The amount actually spent will be determined by each parent's moral and ethical belief systems.
Your parenting belief system seems to lean towards spending more than the guidelines suggest, and there is nothing wrong with this. However, your decision to do this does not legally or morally and ethically obligate your Ex to contribute more than what he is required to pay per the CO. Again, the NCP is not a deadbeat for refusing to pay more than what is court ordered, since according to his moral and ethical belief systems he is parenting his child properly. Your belief system is no better or worse then his belief system. They are just different and each should be respected.
"It's not giving it to my ex; it's giving it to my child."
This is a pretty naive statement when you consider the legal aspects of CS. There are no laws that require CS to be spent on the child, or even to account for how the CS is spent. In reality CS becomes the sole property of the CP and can be spent on whatever the CP wants to spend it on. The child doesn't even have a legal claim or interest in the CS. In reality CS is merely a redistribution of wealth between one parent and the other.
"he's got disability income"
I'm now confused. Your Ex is on disability yet you posted that he should get a second job. If he's disabled how can he work?
thanks for the lucid posts, Stirling. Yes, retirement comes first, for several fin reasons, not least unavailability of old-age grants and loans beyond whatever might remain of Soc Sec and Medicare/Medicaid. The idea is to do both, though. Am on track for both solo. Does not negate x's ethical responsibility to dd, noted in your post below. (And actually we do live in a CO-college-costs state, though then you're left with the enforcement realities.) Will come back to the legal/ethical distinction later....
yes, which is why you can structure an agreement so that over-min is channeled without going through the CP's hands. ;) My x gets lucky on this count. Actually I offered to set things up this way, but he declined, would rather it all just go through me.
No, didn't say he should get a second job (though I'd prefer he either kept his disability or, once off, maintained his current income level; he's capable of it). Am saying that if a hypothetical NCP is strapped for cash, and is attempting to solve problem by seeking c/s reduction, why not work second job instead and boost both own income and c/s?
and not everyone can or is willing to give all for thier children. I think that is what the majority of the posters are trying to tell you.
You say there are those who shouldn't have children, I agree to some extent, but many who are on this board already have the children in place prior to things going haywire.
What is your opinion on the following issue:
Say a Highly paid NCP gets laid off (happens alot), and the only way he/she can get another job paying anything close to what they were getting paid was to move across country????
OR they could take a less paying job and TRY to get a downward mod on the CS just to be able to live and stay near thier child?
What if that same poor NCP had a vindictive PBFH who uses the CS to keep sitting on their butt at home...and he/she kept taking the NCP to court every other year just to up the CS?
There are many many different senarios to CS and if you hang around a while you will see. I fully believe that the "Family" court needs to be completely overhauled because many children are being harmed by vindictive X's, uncaring NCP's, deabeats and a system of support that doesn't work!!
I am not only a CP, I'm also a NCP...so I see both sides of the problem. My 2 that are with me don't get support...it's ordered, and I have tried all I can to get the support they need, but it doesn't happen. WHY??? The one I send support to...gets what she needs, has what she needs, except I have a vindictive X who took her across country and now I only get to see her 1-2 X's a year AND by doing that...It UPPED my CS obligation because now I have less time with her...It's not fair and doesn't fit in a perfect tidy package all wrapped up with a bow. I am owed over $17,000 in back CS, he's working, he just doesn't pay and Child Support Enforcement can't seem to get him to pay because once they "find" him, he takes off again. Sure it "Should NOT" be this way...but that's the REALITY of CS that many of us face....
We don't want to seem that we are picking on you, it's just we don't feel you quite seem to grasp the true reality of how messed up Child support can become!!!
that is probably how it would go....but the world is NOT perfect and neither is CS and how it is set up.
Many times those same NCP"s have TOO HIGH set CS already and are barely making it. Many places don't have 2nd jobs available that are willing to work around an NCP's schedule. And of course there are also the vindictive greedy CP's that haul that same NCP to court for every last dime they can squeez out of them. Course there are also NCP's that didn't choose to be NCP. Their X's take off with the kids, NCP has no $ because of the HIGH CS so he/she can't fight a move.
Are you aware that in many States the government can withhold up to 60% of the NCP's income, leaving the NCP 40% to live on?
Then there is the true NCP dead beat who skates thier responsibility altogether. Like my X...I have received 1 CS check since Feb 05 for $120. I have let CSE know countless times where he is, where he works and they claim they can't find him...what am I to do?? He owes me over $17K in arrears...yah he should get a 2nd job...could you please find him and tell him to do that??? THANKS!!!
I assume that when you say "min-CS" you mean in accordance with the guidelines, and what you are looking for is an agreement with the NCP to pay above what the guidelines would require. Barring extenuating circumstances a judge doesn't really have much wiggle room to deviate from the guidelines. However, you are correct that the NCP can agree to pay more than guidelines and it would become part of the CO and be legally binding. Of course there is no incentive for the NCP to do so. Why would the NCP voluntarily obigate himself to pay an amount that a judge has no ability to award otherwise? Also, the NCP can still pay for extras if he choses to without the extra amount being included in the CO. Do you really think that your Ex will be agreeable to paying CS in excess of the guidelines?
Edited to add:
Many years ago when I was going through my own divorce my Ex presented me with a CS offer during a settlement conference with our attorney's. Her generous offer was that that I would pay 150% of the CS guidelines until our children turned 23 years old which is 5 years after our state's normal age of emancipation. I can still hear her attorney telling me that "this settlement can be done if both parties agree to it" (since a judge could not order it otherwise). I then asked her attorney, "if this is such a great deal would you take it if you were in my shoes?" My Ex's attorney remained silent. So then I looked at my Ex and said, "Like your attorney I'm going to pass on your offer".
A CP could also take a second job to provide the extras she/he would like to provide for the child. BTDT.
There are some NCPs out there that have decided that they will not pay CS. To that end they have structured their lives so they don't have to. In some cases they work off the books. In other cases they don't work at all. They would probably be living a more abundant and prosperous life if they would pay the CS and spend there time working on ways to attract more money into their life rather than on figuring out ways to avoid paying CS.
It makes sense to earn that extra dollar even if 30% of it will go to CS. The other 70% inproves the NCP's lifestyle which their child will also enjoy.
Edited to add:
I would not recommend that a NCP get a second job since that would most likely cut into their already limited parenting time.
Ok custodial parents, let's make a deal...
We NCPs (I'm one of those unwilling ones whose child was outright stolen) won't complain about HOW MUCH we are order to pay each month if YOU agree to 1) that the court order also specify how much of your own income will go to the child each month, 2) you agree to be subject to INCARCERATION for contempt if you don't pay it (even when you lose your job), and 3) a change of custody to the NCP, along with the same amount of support, should you interfere in the NCPs court-order time with his child.
I just checked....I got a CS Check TODAY!!! wooo hooo!!!!
Now maybe I can afford to get the kids something for Christmas!!! Granted $454.82 won't go very far...but it's better than not having anything at all!!!!
100% of the CS because the NCP doesn't pay??? Who's NCP just took off and abandoned thier child? Who begs their NCP to spend time with thier child?? Who's NCP calls to ask for time, then renigs and the CP is left with a devestated child to console?
SIGH...it's a messed up problem and no rubber stamp will fit all senarios.
>Yeah, that's probably how it'll go. I'd prefer that we
>figure it up and do it legal, though, because otherwise I have
>no guarantee he'll pay. He might say that, say, music lessons
>are a great idea, pay for the first month, and then stand
>there turning his pockets inside out (he's got disability
>income of -- well, let's just say the amount that the
>insurance co. pays into his retirement account alone is more
>than he'll be paying in c/s monthly, and if he's off
>disability he's capable of making big bucks, just wants to
>switch to a low-pay career and go to school). Then I'm there
>stuck either telling the kid "no more music lessons", with the
>lesson attached that there's no point working at something
>because it's just going to get yanked, or paying for the whole
>thing myself.
>
>I'll have primary care. Liberal visitation.
>
>
Timtow, I don't want to come across like I am attacking you, I am just trying understand.
First, the term visitation is abhorrent to me. It implies that a parent is a "visitor" in their child's life. No parent should be a vistor, they are a parent with all the rights and responsibilities that go with that title. Why will you and your ex not share custody of your child. Custody should be 50-50 unless there are specific reason why it could not be. (Primarily the safety of the child).
And what exactally is "Liberal" visitation? Who decides what is liberal? You? What is to keep you from enrolling your child in all sorts of activities (that you feel are important) and then these activities interfering with your ex's ability to spend time with his child. Read the other post on these boards, it happens all the time. And while it might not be done purposefully, (there are those parents that involve their children in so many activities the kid's head's are left spinning) it interferes with the other parents ability to spend quality time with their children. I have a co-worker that experiences this. When he finally gets a chance to spend time with his kids, they are so exhausted from all the activities their mother has them doing, they only want to unwind, or spend time with their friends in an unstructured enviroment. Bottom line, dad has the kids physically, not emotionally.
Now on to the comment about your ex's disability income. You specifically mention that the amount his insurance pays into his retirement account is more than what he would be paying in child support.
1. Is that the guideline support, or the amount you are looking for?
2. Why would you even mention this? you already said in a previous post that you think that putting money away in retirement is an appropriate use of funds as it prevents the children from having to take care of us when we get older. So are we to assume by your posts that it is only important when it is your retirement account that is being funded?
Lastly, if you ex is on disability, his income has been reduced. It sounds like you are capable of (and are) earning a good wage. If you both had 50/50 custody of your child (as it should be) then you can pay him support......
And to qualify my position....That is exactally my position. I am the custodial parent, time split on paper is 54-46, (though thru choices their mother has made, the children are with me more than that). I am the high earner, and I pay her child and spousal support. Am I happy about it? NO! But even though the time split has now evolved into more like 70-30 I still pay "what the court ordered". (Even though now, she would most likely have to pay me) Why, because I see it is what is in the best interest of my children. She would not be capable of paying me support, and with out the money I give her, my children would be the ones that would have to do with out. And I try to never schedule things on their mothers "custody time" even when I know it is something they would like to do. I suggest they tell their mother about it. If she thinks it is a good idea, then they get to go. If their mother can't afford to pay for it, I make arrangements to do so....even though it often means that I go with out.
>>
>>
>
>Timtow, I don't want to come across like I am attacking you, I
>am just trying understand.
>
No offense taken.
>First, the term visitation is abhorrent to me.
Me too. I agree with you. I'm just using the system's terms. I stand corrected.
>Why will you and
>your ex not share custody of your child. Custody should be
>50-50 unless there are specific reason why it could not be.
>(Primarily the safety of the child).
I agree, unless it's harder on the kids to shuttle. On my end, it has to do with the nature of x's disability, which I'll not go into here, but yes, it's a safety/welfare issue. He's asking me to take primary care for his own reasons, so that's convenient and saves an ugly/expensive fight. I have no driving need to be Martyred All-The-Time Mom.
>And what exactally is "Liberal" visitation? Who decides what
>is liberal? You? What is to keep you from enrolling your child
>in all sorts of activities (that you feel are important) and
>then these activities interfering with your ex's ability to
>spend time with his child.
There's no reason you should've known this, but x and I have been separated for 1.5 years. I've tried to structure things so that he sees her every day, and she's had few days in her life without him. I don't schedule her for anything during "his time" unless he consents and we work out something to make it up. Unless his presence is somehow dangerous to her, or he's bringing her around dangerous people, I don't see how it can be bad for her to spend time with her daddy. "Liberal" will likely mean "as much as he can tolerate", since he's been the one pulling back. I expect we'll have more tugging-and-pulling as she gets older and can throw her own wishes into the mix.
> Bottom line, dad has the kids physically, not
>emotionally.
=) Sense can cure that.
>Now on to the comment about your ex's disability income. You
>specifically mention that the amount his insurance pays into
>his retirement account is more than what he would be paying in
>child support.
>
>1. Is that the guideline support, or the amount you are
>looking for?
Actually it tops even the minimum I'd look for.
>2. Why would you even mention this? you already said in a
>previous post that you think that putting money away in
>retirement is an appropriate use of funds as it prevents the
>children from having to take care of us when we get older. So
>are we to assume by your posts that it is only important when
>it is your retirement account that is being funded?
No. If he's old and broke she's got the same problem as she will if I'm old and broke. The idea is that his disability income is so high that the insured retirement match alone beats the c/s payment. This is private disability, not SSD.
>Lastly, if you ex is on disability, his income has been
>reduced.
Yes. It's still more than most American households see. Private disability insurance is a very good thing to have.
It sounds like you are capable of (and are) earning a
>good wage. If you both had 50/50 custody of your child (as it
>should be) then you can pay him support......
His income will still likely top mine. At that point I wouldn't be obliged to pay him directly -- it'd be the other way around -- but I'd certainly agree to funnel any over-min into accounts and payees for her.
>And to qualify my position....That is exactally my position. I
>am the custodial parent, time split on paper is 54-46, (though
>thru choices their mother has made, the children are with me
>more than that). I am the high earner, and I pay her child and
>spousal support. Am I happy about it? NO! But even though the
>time split has now evolved into more like 70-30 I still pay
>"what the court ordered". (Even though now, she would most
>likely have to pay me) Why, because I see it is what is in the
>best interest of my children. She would not be capable of
>paying me support, and with out the money I give her, my
>children would be the ones that would have to do with out. And
>I try to never schedule things on their mothers "custody time"
>even when I know it is something they would like to do. I
>suggest they tell their mother about it. If she thinks it is a
>good idea, then they get to go. If their mother can't afford
>to pay for it, I make arrangements to do so....even though it
>often means that I go with out.
You sound like a good daddy with lucky kids.
>and not everyone can or is willing to give all for thier
>children. I think that is what the majority of the posters
>are trying to tell you.
And that's the part that has me shaking my head.
>You say there are those who shouldn't have children, I agree
>to some extent, but many who are on this board already have
>the children in place prior to things going haywire.
Yes. Otoh, there's haywire and haywire. If you know you're not likely to be topping $12/h, well, you can write up the budget yourself, and think, "If we divorce, or if something happens to this fella, can I take care of a kid on my own? Two? Three? Six?"
>What is your opinion on the following issue:
>
>Say a Highly paid NCP gets laid off (happens alot), and the
>only way he/she can get another job paying anything close to
>what they were getting paid was to move across country????
Involuntary is involuntary, but there are many more telecommute, contract, and business options open than there used to be. The basic principle applies: Get more clever about how to make more $ while preserving time for kid. Also think about where the limits are & opportunities for having kids work alongside you if the relationships/ages are conducive to that.
>OR they could take a less paying job and TRY to get a downward
>mod on the CS just to be able to live and stay near thier
>child?
Or they could get creative during what's hopefully a temporary downturn, and not wait for a local brick-and-mortar employer to show up with jobs on offer. In the meantime, the income is what it is.
>What if that same poor NCP had a vindictive PBFH who uses the
>CS to keep sitting on their butt at home...and he/she kept
>taking the NCP to court every other year just to up the CS?
Then the poor NCP has a problem indeed -- not the at-home butt (and, you know, I've been an at-home mom, and it's not a hell of a lot of fun or relaxation, frankly), but the fact that the kid may not be getting the benefit. Then the NCP can sue for shared custody and be in a better position to see that the kid does get the benefit. Otherwise, the NCP can meet the CS limits and then, as previously discussed, go over that in ways that don't touch the CP's bank account.
>I am not only a CP, I'm also a NCP...so I see both sides of
>the problem. My 2 that are with me don't get support...it's
>ordered, and I have tried all I can to get the support they
>need, but it doesn't happen. WHY??? The one I send support
>to...gets what she needs, has what she needs, except I have a
>vindictive X who took her across country and now I only get to
>see her 1-2 X's a year AND by doing that...It UPPED my CS
>obligation because now I have less time with her...It's not
>fair and doesn't fit in a perfect tidy package all wrapped up
>with a bow. I am owed over $17,000 in back CS, he's working,
>he just doesn't pay and Child Support Enforcement can't seem
>to get him to pay because once they "find" him, he takes off
>again. Sure it "Should NOT" be this way...but that's the
>REALITY of CS that many of us face....
Yes, I know. Which is the basis of the "what the hell is wrong with people, trying to pay less money for their kids?"
>We don't want to seem that we are picking on you, it's just we
>don't feel you quite seem to grasp the true reality of how
>messed up Child support can become!!!
Look, frankly, child support is and will be the least of our problems. What I'm asking about -- if you go back to the first post -- is the absence of sentiment that says, "I have children. They come first. I will do whatever I need to do to give them everything they can reasonably use, and then I will tuck away as much as I can for when they're older and find ordinary adult uses for the money. I will at the same time figure out how to spend time being a parent and take care of myself, also knowing that childhood is temporary. These are the driving forces and I will not willingly do anything that puts the goals in jeopardy."
I gotta get back to work. More in a while.
Timtow,
Some of you previous post have made you sound, well a bit pretentious.
This post has been more down to earth. Thank you for clarifying some things. It does sound like you have the best interests of you child at heart and not necessarily at the expense of you ex. There are some concepts and decisions that some of us will not agree with, but that is all about personal beliefs.
As a father that has done everthing I can to assure that both parents are involved in my childrens life, I can appreciate the efforts it sounds like you are making. Just remember, it is not about the money, it is about the childrens happiness. And that has no fiscal value.
You have mentioned several times it takes X number of dollars to raise a child. That is not true. There is no way to determine a dollar value for raising a successful child. Ask people that have been raised in low income or imigrant families, that have gone on to be successful in business, medicine, and many other areas. Or, inversely, those that have come from very wealthy families and are now spending time in jail. Money is not the factor that decides success. Personal ambition, drive and responsibility are what decides success in life.
Why are you surprised by your STBX? It is his responsibility to provide for the child's needs, not for your belief of how life should be. I do wonder about the custody situation involved.
Quite honestly it sounds as if you dont need his money to begin with, so why does this bother you? Look at it this way, you have 100% of your money to disburse as you see fit....he on the other hand will not...and then he is being asked to give even more.
Most NCP's provide a room in their home for their children...they provide during their time with the child. You have spoken of the time you spend with your child, but what time does the father get? She is his child as well.....
Saying that a NCP should get a second job means telling that parent that if they only get two weekends per month with their child, they need to work during that time instead of totally focusing on their child. Now, turn that on yourself....you only get four days a month and YOU are working during that pitiful amount of time.
I have been on both sides....I have always been CP, but my husband was NCP until recently. I can tell you - on his weekends with his son, he needed to be with his child. Not working. And it didnt seem fair when Bm purchases over $200 in bandages that were never used for ss....and which she claimed she donated to charity.........But, dh was made to pay $189 for. The bills are not always really for the child...just a way to stick it to the other parent.....
In my situation, my ex rarely pays. He is about $11,000 behind in two years. I would be happy to get what the courts say he has to pay....which is guidelines.
Also, ask yourself why CS is higher just because a parent makes more money. A combined income of $5,000 means a child needs more to live than a child whose parents have a combined income of $1,000. Why? It is not the child's needs that are being met by that money, but the parents lifestyle. The needs are housing, clothes, and food. And designer clothes are not basic needs....
People complain not because they dont love their children, but because the system is not fair.
It takes the janitors, the common laborers, the cashiers, to make this world survive........not everyone can do freelance.....
I will start by saying that not all CP's are money grubbing, but certainly are. Dh's ex refused to work for years because she could live off of CS just fine as long as she found a man to live with. DH and I hid our assets from her so she didn't know how much we had and really how much DH made. Was it wrong? No way!
"Why would the NCP voluntarily obigate himself to pay an amount that a judge has no ability to award otherwise?"
Because he or she loves the children and is a stand-up type who doesn't have to be told how far he can support his kids; trusts the CP to spend the money wisely on the kids (or makes alternate arrangements for disbursement); and understands it's to the children's advantage if the CP can budget for and plan with the money. My father, incidentally, did this. Paid (much) more than was required and gave my mother nearly all the assets, though this would never have been ordered. I know other stand-up NCPs who do similar.
"Also, the NCP can still pay for extras if he choses to without the extra amount being included in the CO."
True; however, then the CP can't budget to include it, so there's no reliable increase in standard of living for the children. If x agrees that, say, dd should have bassoon lessons, but then flakes after five months on the cost of the lessons and bassoon rental, I'm stuck either scrambling to pay, or -- if it happens repeatedly -- teaching the girl that there's not much point being disciplined/serious about new things she tries, since she'll probably have to quit. Given the way my x handles money, I'd be disinclined to start the lessons unless I planned to pay entirely on my own. I certainly wouldn't base a mortgage payment on it. He generally means well, but I have doubts that the money would actually make it over here unless it was automatic.
"Do you really think that your Ex will be agreeable to paying CS in excess of the guidelines?"
Well, that's not really germane. We will see what he does.
As for the offer -- why do you need to wait for an offer? You can do the math yourself, figure up what you can skin yourself for, and call it the kid's. If you've got any kind of middle-class earning & money-mgmt ability, it's going to be better than 150% anyway. After 18 there are ways to put that towards college extras incl. saving for graduate school expenses and help with first-homebuying or business-establishing, and after 23 one continues to save for both the kid and any grandchildren. Please. Yes, of course I would do all that. This is why I think this whole business of looking to the state minimums is sad.
"Quite honestly it sounds as if you dont need his money to begin with, so why does this bother you?"
This is not, I think, a good way to look at it. The obligation is absolute. It wouldn't matter if I made a million bucks a minute. One of his jobs is to provide whatever he can for her, in a way that is healthy for her; I have the same job. If she doesn't need the money now, she may need it later. Or she may want it later for school or business. (All those rich doctors you see? The young ones are likely walking around $200K in school debt, or more from starting their practices, with the interest meter ticking. It'll be years and years before they see black. Some never will.) She may turn out to be an artist, and that's an expensive way to live; he may be a good enough father to support her in that with savings from childhood. She may get sick, or have a child with disabilities. She may even have to go through a nasty divorce from a rich guy with an expensive lawyer after she's stayed home for fifteen years. Savings from daddy is never a bad thing to have in reserve. The worst it can do is go unused and collect interest for grandchildren.
What you say up there is the kind of thinking that helps divorce men from their kids, I think -- the kind of thing that leads people to say, "Well, her new husband is rich, so she doesn't need the daddy's money." The daddy's money is for the kid, not the mom, and his connection and obligation don't go away because the mom is now married again. The obligation is part of the connection.
Oh. About second jobs cutting into time with the kids -- if there's only minimum visitation -- which I think is generally tragic anyway -- then come on, there's plenty of time in the schedule to pick up extra work or go to night school & get prepped to do freelance or contract work.
"Also, ask yourself why CS is higher just because a parent makes more money. A combined income of $5,000 means a child needs more to live than a child whose parents have a combined income of $1,000. Why? It is not the child's needs that are being met by that money, but the parents lifestyle. The needs are housing, clothes, and food. And designer clothes are not basic needs...."
No, the needs are education, high-quality care, good insurance, and opportunities to find passions that can become professions. In other words, the things that lead the child to a rich adult life where she can use her gifts to the fullest, for herself and for others, and protect herself and her kids from hardships.
I'm finding this to be an interesting conversation classwise. What I'm putting out here is the ordinary professional-class party line. It's well-understood there that a kid's education is expensive, from birth to launch, but pays off huge. That message is not sticking to anything here; I'm hearing in reply a lot of "Parents owe their children food, housing, clothes, love, and no more; in fact more may spoil them." What it says to me is that there may be a profound class gap in attitude that isn't easily bridged. Also that it may go a long way toward explaining how rigid we are socioeconomically, how hard it is to move up if you're down, how unlikely it is you'll move down if you're up.
=) too bad I'm not a sociologist....
When man goes out and makes a living (or gains income through some means that included making a smart investment -- or investing in private disability insurance), Then he has some pride in "providing for" his family.
Whether he is handing his $$ to the government or to some other entity, he still wants to see the bang for his buck (e.g., what is the money being spent on?) When an NCP (generally the man) hands his $$ over to the CP, he RARELY sees the bang for his buck. Many times they not only pay CS, but they also end up paying for BASICS too, on a limited income. They see their children in designer clothes, but the kids haven't been to the dentist in over a year or the kids need a haircut. They see their kids without properly fitting shoes, but the CP has just purchased a new vehicle. They are handing over money with no say in how it is being spent and with the possibility that THEY will have to pay it again directly to the store/dentist/barber. If you have to pay for things twice, wouldn't you want a discount on the original bill?
When a misfortune occurs (job loss, unexpected surgery, stock market crash, dishonest accountant embezzles all their funds) they understand that IF the family had been intact, the WHOLE family would tighten their belts and make adjustments.
But that is not the case in divorce. The amount the Ex spouse makes wouldn't change, but the available funds in the NCP household is decreased, while the PERCENTAGE of the NCP's funds going to the CP household is increased.
Some industries are hard hit and many employers refuse to hire those who are overqualified -- so jobs can be VERY hard to find and no amount of smart networking is going to land one quickly. Some people are just not very scholarly, and "higher education" is above their abilities.
Some CP's fail to pull their fair share following the divorce and an unsually high percentage of the "income shares" is apportioned to the NCP -- after a period of time, a recalculation will decrease the amount the NCP is paying while leveling off the incomes in each household. Sometimes lowering support is about being able to afford to have your child eat when at your house.
I do not think I have seen a person fighting the purchase of life insurance to benefit the child, but the complaint is in who is named as the benficiary. It is nonsense to think that ALL CP's are good caring persons, just as it is nonsense to think that all NCP's are deadbeats. SOME CP's are all about the money and in those cases, to protect some kind of future for the CHILD, the NCP is fighting NOT to have to provide an insurance policy payable to the CP. If a trust is made for the child and the policy pays to the trust, that would make sure the child benefits from the $$. That is all the NCPs are battling for.
And paying for braces which are not medically necessary should be a discussion, not a dictated command by a CP. You talk it out and budget it in IF POSSIBLE, not get hit by a bill for thousands.
Please do yourself a favor and start out by being more understanding and less confrontational.
Even when both parents want what's best for the child, there are differences in their ability to pay for the child's needs and their own needs. It comes down to different perceptions of what constitutes 'need'. For example, does your child 'need' a personal nanny, household help, and a prepaid college? You seem to think so. Others may not (I paid for my own college and graduate school - as did my entire famly).
Do you need to take care of your own needs (including planning for retirement)? Yes.
Can someone disagree with your definition of need without you labeling them selfish? You'll have to answer that.
"Because he or she loves the children and is a stand-up type who doesn't have to be told how far he can support his kids; trusts the CP to spend the money wisely on the kids (or makes alternate arrangements for disbursement); and understands it's to the children's advantage if the CP can budget for and plan with the money. My father, incidentally, did this. Paid (much) more than was required and gave my mother nearly all the assets, though this would never have been ordered. I know other stand-up NCPs who do similar."
Again, you are confusing the law with your own moral and ethical belief system.
I hope that you won't be too disappointed if your Ex decides not to be legaly bound to pay more than the CS guidelines. Your Ex can still pay extra if he choses to without being court ordered to do so. Again I suggest that allowing your Ex to effectively co-parent with you with encourage him to pay extra.
And for the record I gave my Ex over 90% of the marital assets, over 60% of the joint cash flow, and split the marital debt 50/50 in our divorce agreement. In addition, I am currently paying guideline CS for three children even though we only have one minor child (I never reduced CS when the other two were emancipated).
"then the CP can't budget to include it"
I see, so the heart of the matter is a control issue. Part of getting a divorce means that you no longer have control over how your Ex choses to spend his money (over and above CS).
As far as you budget goes, I would suggest that you only budget for guideline support.
From your posts it seems that you are fairly new to these divorce related issues. Myself and others who have responded to you have many years of experience dealing with these issues and are trying to help you, and give you realistic viewpoints. We are giving you our real life experiences. I think that your expectations may not be realistic, and judging by other posts many people seem to feel the same way. Does your attorney think that you have a realistic chance at getting a CS award above the guidelines? I suspect that the only chance you have of this happening is if your Ex voluntarily aggrees to it, and from what you posted he doesn't seem to be inclined to do so. Again your moral and ethical beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the CS laws.
"After 18 there are ways to put that towards college extras incl. saving for graduate school expenses and help with first-homebuying or business-establishing, and after 23 one continues to save for both the kid and any grandchildren. Please. Yes, of course I would do all that."
Just curious, do you ever plan on teaching your child to stand on her own two feet and become an independant contributing member of society, or do you intend to subsidize her existance and keep her dependant upon you for the rest of your life?
You don't solve money problems with money.
The bench mark of a successful parent that I use is that a successful parent is one who prepares their child to be an independant contributing members of society as quickly as possible.
On the contrary. There are a great many problems that can be solved with money. Lack of individual access to good healthcare and legal representation is a big one. Money can buy time, security, health, and a good deal of personal liberty. Most of the science, technology, government (and it's not all bad; try living somewhere chaotic for a while) and art you live with comes from rich people who had liberty to futz around. Your movies/entertainment comes from rich filmschool kids. Regarding which, don't make the mistake of thinking that people work only for money, and will stop working if there's no financial benefit.
Of course the point is not to support a child for life; there's no need to exaggerate. There is a very large difference between keeping an adult child on the dole and helping the adult child pay for school or buy a first home. You appear to have done for yourself, and good for you; but many fortunate and successful adults in this country had parents who gave them a boost or a gift from time to time, and stood ready to help them and the grandchildren financially if there was hardship. My dad did for us when my husband first left work, before we knew the disability would kick in; his help let me stay home and care for my husband and infant daughter instead of putting her in fulltime daycare. Would she have died in daycare? Probably not. But the idea is to do as well for the child as possible, and home care is better than daycare for babies. (No, my husband was not able to care for her.)
Values, ethics, mores, and hard realities are what drive the formation of laws, including support formulas. While my ethics and circumstances may not match with those that make the current laws, to say that laws and ethics have nothing to do with each other is off-base.
I'm well aware, btw, that my ethics and the ethics behind c/s formulas don't match. Also that in a contest, the law wins. I'm not planning on budgeting for more than the minimum. But none of that has to do with my original question.
=) Your part about no moral sense or ethics being better than another works only if you're a relativist, btw. And I think if you poke it, you'll find it's a good superficial peacemaker, but not necessarily true.
""then the CP can't budget to include it"
I see, so the heart of the matter is a control issue. Part of getting a divorce means that you no longer have control over how your Ex choses to spend his money (over and above CS)."
That's a magic word, control, isn't it. No, it's a sensible budgeting and quality-of-life issue. If the money is not reliably in the budget, I can't plan to spend it on dd. Not an issue for one-time expenses, but for ongoing expenses it is. Random gifts of money are very nice, but I'm not budgeting for ___ lessons based on them. Which may just mean dd doesn't get those things. If the same amount of $ is there in the support order, then fine, I can expect his half of the costs of ____ will show up, and sign her up.
Actually if X wants to designate the money for certain things for her, that's fine with me. So long as I know the money's actually going to show up.
If he regards it as 'his' money, btw, then he hasn't promised it to her, has he. And that's at the heart of the matter.
"On the contrary. There are a great many problems that can be solved with money. Lack of individual access to good healthcare and legal representation is a big one. Money can buy time, security, health, and a good deal of personal liberty. Most of the science, technology, government (and it's not all bad; try living somewhere chaotic for a while) and art you live with comes from rich people who had liberty to futz around. Your movies/entertainment comes from rich filmschool kids. Regarding which, don't make the mistake of thinking that people work only for money, and will stop working if there's no financial benefit."
You misunderstood what I wrote. I said, "money issue cannot be solved with money". Throwing money at a money issue merely enables the person to continue to make poor financial choices. The examples you gave were non-money issues.
"Values, ethics, mores, and hard realities are what drive the formation of laws"
Actually its lobbying that drives the formation of laws.
"I'm well aware, btw, that my ethics and the ethics behind c/s formulas don't match. Also that in a contest, the law wins. I'm not planning on budgeting for more than the minimum. But none of that has to do with my original question."
I'm glad to hear that you are budgeting for a realistic CS award based on the legal guidelines. As far as your original question goes, like I already said each person's unique set of moral and ethical belief systems related to parenting their child will determine their views of how that child should be financially supported.
"Your part about no moral sense or ethics being better than another works only if you're a relativist."
We live in a relative world so what's your point?
Moral and ethical beliefs are merely choices. If those choices no longer serve you, or support the person you want to be, or the life experience you want to have, then choose again! Adopt a new set of beliefs that do support the person you want to be and the life experience you want to have.
"That's a magic word, control, isn't it. No, it's a sensible budgeting and quality-of-life issue."
By the very nature of CS the quality of life at issue is yours rather than your daughter's since she indireactly benefits from CS. Remember, all CS is is a redistribution of wealth from one parent to the other. The child has no legal claim to it, and there are no legal restrictions on how CS is spent. Also, your daughter is enjoying your Ex's net income after CS since it enhances his lifestyle and she enjoys that lifestyle during their parenting time. It seems that you would rather have the extra money above CS to enhance your home's lifestyle, at the expense of your Ex's lifestyle, and have your daughter enjoy it their rather than at your Ex's place. Still seems controling to me.
"If the money is not reliably in the budget, I can't plan to spend it on dd. Not an issue for one-time expenses, but for ongoing expenses it is. Random gifts of money are very nice, but I'm not budgeting for ___ lessons based on them. Which may just mean dd doesn't get those things."
Welcome to the harsh world of divorce and it's unpleasent realities. Most of us have been dealing with these issues for years.
Like I said before, if you want your Ex to pay a portion of lessons, then allow him to be a valid part of the decision making process. If you sign her up for an activity and then tell your Ex that he should pay for part of it, I doubt that he would feel much like contributing towards the activity. Again, part of being divorced means that you no longer have a say in how your Ex spends his money. If you want him to contribute do what you can so he will want to contribute extra.
"Actually if X wants to designate the money for certain things for her, that's fine with me. So long as I know the money's actually going to show up. If he regards it as 'his' money, btw, then he hasn't promised it to her, has he. And that's at the heart of the matter."
I have no idea if your Ex will live up to his word if he agrees to pay for things outside of the provisions of the court order. You should have a better feel for his level of responsibility and reliability, after all you married him.
Well, you're making a number of assumptions, there.
Re money solving money issues. See my remark about my father helping us as my husband left work, before we had word on the disability insurance. Money most certainly solved a money issue there. Illness cannot generally be defined as "a poor financial choice"; choice is frequently not involved.
Re redistribution of wealth: Yes, I understand how this works. It only works, though, if you're playing zero-sum. The idea is net gain for the child, in the form of services, college savings, etc., with me contributing exactly as before, not less than before thanks to increased c/s. And frankly I'd find the intimation that I'd slack off kind of insulting, if it hadn't made me smile. (A little sadly, because I understand there are people who would do that.) I'm standing here in 15-year-old clothes, I've had access to his money throughout the marriage, and he's not too savvy financially. If I'd wanted to rape him for money so I could live it up, I think I'd have done it a while ago. Luckily he's not worried about that one either. Something about that ethical sense again.
Re x's involvement in decisions on spending the money, I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm trying to cut him out or sock him with bills. Afaik there isn't much in her life we don't discuss, and where he's absent, it's because he's said he wants to leave it to me. I don't sign her up for anything without seeing what he thinks, because we're talking about her education, and he's her father. My proposed c/s budget is about splitting her likely costs right down the middle. All of them, including insurance, childcare, housing above what we'd spend on ourselves, etc. We both made her, and it seems to me we're equally responsible. In fact I've asked him to go through the kid-expenses budget and decide explicitly which things he wants to and doesn't want to pay for if his c/s offer won't meet the total.
My x's lifestyle is more likely to be determined by the state of his health than by the state of his wallet, unfortunately, and I understand that's not necessarily the norm. If money could fix that one, it'd be well worth it. He's already got the best treatment/services he's willing to bother with, though, and excellent health insurance.
Personally I think there ought to be pretty good equity across the households, and I've been pushing for more equity for some time. It's ridiculous for him to have this teeny lousy place while we're living in a house. Modest house, granted, but clean, quiet, nice, has yard, nice neighbors, good roof. But he isn't able to take care of a house, not for the foreseeable future. A 2-br apt is a stretch. It's one of the reasons he's willing to have her stay with me.
Gotta run. Btw, the lobbying has motive forces, too, and interestingly enough they're not just bucks. I used to work for the US House of Reps, seen it in action. And thanks for the level & thoughtful responses.
Your theatrics have yet to convince me that you have the best interest of the child in mind. However you have made it VERY clear that you want all the power, control & the money. Sadly the courts are still rather father bias so it's likely you will get what you desire. Dad will be regulated to nothing more then a visitor & a wallet. Why don't you try asking the child what he/she wants? I bet you would come to find that he would enjoy having both parents equally in his life. You know, the way it was meant to be damnit. Don't you see that the world is going to hell in a handbag because of broken parentless families? Doesn't it bother you that according to statistics children from fatherless households have an extremely high increase of out of wedlock pregnancy, drop out, suicide & incarceration? Apparently the answer is NO. You have yet to make ANY statement that Dad is otherwise unfit to parent the child. The simple answer to what really is in THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD is to offer DAD 50/50 custody with no (or minimal) child support changing hands. But then again financially supporting the child to the best of your OWN ability would be just too burdensome for you. Sad, your child is going to pay for your lack education & career opportunities. Get over yourself & get over the fear of not having a husband to financially depend on before you kiddo suffers.
KAT
I wrong a nasty reply to this because your post appeared to be a response to mine. From what you wrote, I don't think that's the case, so I'm going to assume that it was directed at the original post. If it really was intended for me, you couldn't be more wrong.
As for the content, I agree with most of it - with one exception. You argued that 50/50 with little or no money changing hands is best. I don't completely agree with that. In my case, I make a very good salary and my wife quit work to take care of our daughter. It could be a while before she's making a decent salary again and she'll probably never make more than 1/4 to 1/5 of what I make. In that case (and there are plenty like it), I think the fairest thing is 50/50 with the higher income spouse providing significant support for the child so that the child doesn't have to suffer when in the other parent's home. In my case, I'm continuing to pay 100% of her activities, 100% of her private school expenses, and 100% of medical expenses - even though my stbx is working and we share time 50/50.
Again, I'm assuming that you were replying to the original poster. Please clarify if you really meant to reply to my post.
Thanks.
Dude, I don't know who you're talking to here, but if it's me, take a deep breath and reread the posts. I think you'll feel a lot better afterwards. Ftr, I am not the one who filed. And I'm not financially dependent on my x, who's in our daughter's life daily. I don't know who you're angry at, but I think you got the wrong number here.
You are assuming that all custodials do what is best for their children. I have heard many similar stories to mine that can tell you WHY some of us want to pay the minimum.
A few months after they seperated for the final time, BM moved herself 1500 miles away with SD to live with her mother for a few months until she got back on her feet. She was supposed to move back after 6 months but 12 years later, they are both 1500 miles away.
BM's mother, after a couple of months, asked BM to get a job and help with the bills so BM moved into Section 8 housing at $45/month rent and denying her own mother contact with SD. The $45 sounds like a good deal but considering SD never could play outside because of drug dealers and SWAT teams regularly visiting the complex, it isn't so good. BM received OVER the minimum child support. SD ate Hamburger helper 4 days a week and government cheese. Where did the CS go? BM decided she wanted to better herself, so she elected not to work (except enough to keep on welfare) and go to school for 10 years. SD would call up and say she had no food in the house and was hungry.
Now BM has her masters and DH's company closed its doors and he was left on the sidewalk still paying over 100% of the child's expenses (per her mom's financial affidavit) and a good 33% of BM's.
We are not alone. There are thousands of non-custodials out there that are paying not only 100% of the child's upbringing but paying custodial's bills like alcohol and the other parent's student loans.
DH never had a problem with paying more if it was to go the SD, but at least in our case, it is not.
As far as wanting it written in law that he is to pay the minimum, I don't see any reason that he should be required to pay any more. If he is a good dad, he will buy the kid clothes and other "extras". College is the same deal. If you were still married, would a judge make it law that the two of you owe your child college? What if your child turns out to be a criminal or even decided to disown you? Do you think that is right that you would be forced to put the kid through school?
Things like this definately show that there is a line between your moral and your legal responsibility. Just be the best parent you can and be as generous as you can with your ex (ie forgiving mistakes and allowing ample time with the child etc) and I am sure, unless you have a kook on your hands, that her will return the favor.
There are reasons to lower your support. Maybe not in your situation, but there are a lot of people's shoes you have yet to walk in.
Best wishes to you and your family,
Ref
Your STBX may want all that for the child...but, he can save himself without the money going to YOU. he can provide for her college when she is 18, without giving you the money to save now.
While I do believe you want what is best for your child - you seem not to accept that what you believe is BEST is NOT everyone's idea. Your STBX should not have to pay YOU for what you believe is the best thing for the child. He should be able to have his own ideas on that and do with as he sees fit.
Basically, your belief should not be forced upon him. Extra money should not be taken for your beliefs.
I dont view this as being about the child, even though I do see you are wanting her best interest. This is about YOUR wants...what you want to happen...and why you dont understand why your STBX doesnt agree with you......................
Some people may actually believe you can raise a happy, successful child who is strong enough to make it, stand on her/his own feet without simply handing over everything.....
"When man goes out and makes a living (or gains income through some means that included making a smart investment -- or investing in private disability insurance), Then he has some pride in "providing for" his family.
Whether he is handing his $$ to the government or to some other entity, he still wants to see the bang for his buck (e.g., what is the money being spent on?) When an NCP (generally the man) hands his $$ over to the CP, he RARELY sees the bang for his buck. Many times they not only pay CS, but they also end up paying for BASICS too, on a limited income. They see their children in designer clothes, but the kids haven't been to the dentist in over a year or the kids need a haircut. They see their kids without properly fitting shoes, but the CP has just purchased a new vehicle. They are handing over money with no say in how it is being spent and with the possibility that THEY will have to pay it again directly to the store/dentist/barber. If you have to pay for things twice, wouldn't you want a discount on the original bill?"
Thanks for that, 4honor. It makes sense to me. I would approach it slightly differently, but I can see where this comes from.
I am in a somewhat similar situation; my x's disability and treatment can make him extremely erratic, and he doesn't realize when it's happening. I know he means well, but basically I spend a lot of time catching shit that falls from the sky, and will likely do so as long as dd is under 18. Is it fair? No. Is it the reality? Yeah. So I understand damage control (though it sounds like you're approaching it from the standpoint of justice; my take is a little more realist, I think). My approach has been to control what I can, and insulate dd and myself from the rest as far as I can, recognizing that I won't be able to cover everything. Some years ago I recognized that to some extent, I was simply screwed, and would have to accept that as a cost of business, so to speak. I guess I see parallels here. If my X were the CP, I would certainly strive to limit as far as possible the amount going through his hands, and try to set things up independently. Not because he's a jerk -- he's not -- but because I know how he and money get along. I think, though, that he'd probably go along with it far enough for that to work most of the time. Which is not necessarily the case with all CPs.
The life-insurance thing I was referring to was a post -- on this board, maybe? -- where a guy was showing off his cleverness in referring his wife to Social Security's advertised payout in case of his death. An unwillingness to self-insure, basically.
The limited-income thing, though...look, I've been plenty poor, been through bad recessions in declining towns, places where 200 people show up the first day a minimum wage job is advertised. (Remember _Roger & Me_? I know that one.) I also know what I've seen people with no education and limited English do for their kids. Yes, they worked like g*ddamn demons. 12-, 16-hour days. It's not brain surgery; it's volume, showing up, an eye for opportunity, two-bit marketing. They lived like hell themselves, but made sure their kids were better off. The kids went to college, had professional lives, said hello to the upper-middle class and are raising their kids there. There's people doing that kind of thing via the internet now, which means you don't have to be in any particular place anymore. If you're not sick or such a dreamer you trip over your own feet all the time, and you've got any kind of spark to you...man, there's a lot of money out there. So, you know. If what you're saying is that the NCP doesn't value providing all he can, fine. But if you're saying it's not possible to do better...I think I buy that in a pretty limited number of cases.
:D gee, if the GOP still had a non-churchy wing, I guess I'd be joining.
Wow - that really hit a nerve with me. I'm really happy that you feel that way and that you feel the mother of your child will use that money to take wonderful care of your child. But what if as in my case - (a stepmom to my husband who has a 12-year-old), the mom doesn't take care of the child? She barely sees her, and we are fighting for custody tooth and nail while the child gets emotionally abused and DOESN'T get the things that she needs? Even though, with the child support my husband paid out last year - the ex made more than my husband? Why are we paying child support and then also paying for a mother to neglect her child? My husband's daughter never sees one red cent that we pay her - and we pay her a small fortune each month. So while you are happy to pay to your stbx, our experience is not as wonderful as yours.
I'd be quite happy for him to turn over the money to her college savings plan, rather than passing it through me. Waiting till 18 is not very nice to her, since frequently that kind of 'plan' leaves a kid scrambling when the promised money doesn't show at the last minute, and the FAFSA deadline's come and gone. And of course he's entitled to his own ideas. But in our case, it'd say quite a bit about a guy if he chose to fund his own third crack at university instead of funding his daughter's education.
(note to ref: the college-payment requirement had to do, I believe, with cutting out a way for well-off dads to negotiate scandalously low c/s. Used to be a lot of cases of guys threatening not to help with college as an arm-twister. So another example, I suppose, of support rules based on the worst parents' behavior.)
I don't think "strong enough to make it" has very much to do with steering your kid away from crippling debt. There's no reason to put those kinds of obstacles in a kid's way for the hell of it; it's not character-building. College kids used to build plenty of character on a tenth the debt level kids have now, and life is plenty hard without an extra mortgage's worth of debt. Of course, if dd's dead set on struggling through on her own, that's nice too. The savings will continue to grow and be there for her when she figures out there's no great virtue in banging your head against the wall when you don't have to.
Speaking of which, I need to get back to work and knock off the chat board stuff for a while. Thanks for taking time for the conversation, everyone. It's been enlightening & valuable.
"The life-insurance thing I was referring to was a post -- on this board, maybe? -- where a guy was showing off his cleverness in referring his wife to Social Security's advertised payout in case of his death. An unwillingness to self-insure, basically."
I am the poster you are referring to. And you are incorrect in your assumption that my suggestion to point to ss benefits constitutes an unwillingness to self insure.
I am the CP. I have our child 75% of the time by my x's choosing. I support our child 100% on my income, and CSED deposits ALL of x's child support directly into our child's 529 college savings plan.
I have a $500,000 life insurance plan payable into a trust I have set up for my child and an additional $250,000 policy payable to my estate to settle any personal and business debt I may have at the time of my death... any remaining funds are also payable into my childs trust. My attorney and my father are the trustees charged with maintianing the trust after my death, and so long as my child is under 18, 100% of all interest earned is to go to the day to day support of our child.
I opposed purchasing a seperate policy payable directly to my x for many reasons. I am adaquately insured now and refuse to purchase an additional policy that I am certain my x will spend on their needs as opposed to our childs. I was able to convince the judge in our case that via the over $800 a month my x would receive in benefits and the interest generated from the trust I have established, our child would be more than adaquately cared for without giving my x a reason to anxiously await my death in hopes of receiving a life insurance pay out.
You jumped to conclusions. I am in your shoes, I share many of your beliefs that it is my role as a parent to work hard to ensure I leave my child in a better financial position than I am in. However, unlike you I do not believe it is fair to impose those beliefs on my x. I havs my own idea of how our child should be raised, and I will foot the bill for it. I give my x the opportunity to contribute to extras but Ido not believe I have any right to demand it.
You are a new single parent. I have been one for 5 years, and I'm sure I sounded just like you 5 years ago. If I can share just one thing that I've learned along the way with you... it would be forget any preconceived notions you have about what's "right". Build your budget around YOUR income. Sock the child support away for your child when and if you receive it... and go on about your business.
I agree with you that summer camps, music lessons, etc are all valuable activities for children.. but they dont all have to be done at once. You have 18 years of your childs life to fit all of those experiences in . My child is 5, and has a firm grasp on the concept of money and can do basic math (addition and subtraction). Each month as I'm paying bills, I invite my child to sit with me and I share our household budget in simple terms. Ie: we hae $3000 to spend. Here's the house, car, insurance, groceries, etc etc. And here's your activities, they each cost xyz.. which do you want to do this month to equal $?
You have a lot to learn, but trust me it can be done, and the less you depend on your x the better parent you will both be.
I really don't think you get the big picture. Seriously - I am not trying to bust your hump, but my God. I can't believe some of the things you are saying. You are basically saying "tough luck, suck it up, and pay the CP whatever you have to because your kids deserve every penny you make." And yes, I agree that I should give everything single thing I can to my kids, and I do that every single day I get up and go to work. I have an 18 month old daughter at home, and two step-children that live with their mother. The thing is, the ex-wife WILL NOT work, but lets her current husband and my husband support her. She plays the system. The kids DO NOT see a red cent of the support she receives from my husband. They go without many things, leaving it up to us to make sure they are cared for. We would NEVER let them go without. But, she uses us. She uses the child support to do whatever she wants with - she and her husband are not hurting for money AT ALL. And the kids walk around in ratty, dirty clothes. Actually, my husband JUST called me, and she is going on a "girls weekend" trip in two weeks, so we are keeping the kids. She does this all the time! So, I don't care what anyone says, there is no reason to increase my husband's support amount. We provide for the kids' needs. Plus, the more we pay his ex, the less we can provide for the other child we have at home! And if we can't care for her, who is going to do it?
>I have been on both sides of the child support issue. I think
>that the guidelines are very unfair across the board. It
>varies according to the state you live in and that should not
>be. When you pay hundreds of dollars a month and then the BM
>asks for half a copay is just ridiculas. Child support is
>suppose to be HALF the amount to raise the child at the
>standards of living from when the divorce happens. Many CP's
>think that is it for ALL the costs involved. In my state,
>child support goes until 21 years old while in other states is
>goes to 18. My state also MAKES the NCP pay for their "share"
>of college PLUS child support. THe whole system is just not
>right.
>You have great goals for your daughter and many CP's could
>only dream of providing all of that for their kids. Child
>support is for the bare essentials (foold.clothing, shelter)
>and not extra to save for college. It is great that you will
>not rely on child support for every day bills but MANY people
>can not do that....
You can't have the child support the same in every state as every state has a higher or lower cost of living. My state has a high cost of living. The amount that would be ordered in the state (which has a lower cost of living) that I grew up in wouldn't even begin to cover the expenses where I live.
In my state, both parents income are taken into consideration when computing child support. The one who makes more, pays more. And goes until 23 years of age, unless the child does not go to college, then it ends at 18.
And, yes, college costs are being split based on income. Courts are going to look at what the plan was when the parents were together. And my ex and I have every intention of sending our children to college.
I"m confused as to where all this crippling college debt comes from unless one arbitrarily chooses to take it on?
I'll take U of Kansas as an example since I live in the region. Tuition is @ 4k a year, add room and board and books you're looking at @ 10k a year total or 40-50k over the 4 year period. That is a gross total, and doesn't take into account any form of scholarship or grant or subsidized loans. That is for the top school in the state. U of Missouri is @ 2k more a year. That also presumes heading straight to the 4 year institution. Many here go and do 2 years at Juco before shifting to their last 2 years at a 4 year. In the metro CC system it's @ 78/credit hr, or @ 2300/year for 30 credit hrs. Again that's gross, and doesn't even take into account the A+ system which will pretty much cover all tuition and books if you maintain a reasonable GPA during your two years.
Now if someone is adamant about picking a specific private insitution, then they take the chance to take on that debt. Parents need not structure their lives to accomodate a belief that only a high end private college will suffice and struggle to do so. If you want to steer them away from crippling debt, ensure they go to a reasonably priced college and not give them carte blanche to feel entitled to any education that money can buy. For the majority of the population, being prudent when it comes to college has to take priority anyways.
Some parents also see value in allowing their children to make their way on their own as adults. My father was a physician, and could have easily afforded to pay for all of his 3 kids to go to college. He didn't, and we all paid our own way, and were better off for it. What he chose to do with his money as we moved into adulthood, should be his decision, and it shouldn't reflect badly on him if he chose not to spend a dime on us as adults.
I can tell you this. My stepdaughter will be helped with costs at a state school, and beyond that, expectations will fall on her as an adult to take responsibility for her life, and the choices that come with it. There will be no funding on our part for all these possible future endevors into her adult life, as there are reasonable limits that will be adhered to. For us, help means learning how to move into life on your own, not a continuall subsidy.
Well lets look at thinks from another perspective. My DH paid child support, and still had his son 50% of the time. Sometimes he made more than his ex, sometimes he made less. But he always paid. And not only did he pay the support, but he paid daycare expenses as well, even though those were calculated in the support he was already paying. Why? Because he felt it was the right thing to do. At one point he was laid off and couldn't pay his bills, but he still paid her child support from his unemployment. He also continued to pay the daycare bill. When his income went down, he NEVER asked for a decrease. However whenever his income went up she asked for an increase.
A couple years ago, DH and his ex made an agreement outside of court to officially split SS time 50/50 and for each party to take care of expenses when they had SS. Part of the agreement was also for DH to carry health insurance. Now even though we took care of ALL of SS needs when we had him, we also bought his shoes coats and many clothes to send over to BM's house so he wouldn't have to wear the worn out hand me downs she had for him. (Apparently it was more important for her to look good than to make sure SS had clothes and shoes that fit and didn't have holes in them.)
Little did DH know, that the agreement didn't mean anything since it wasn't done through the courts. Now BM is looking to have DH repay 2.5 years worth of CS. Whats really sad, is we have SS most of the time now, because of the poor choices BM made. (She gets him 1 month through the courts, but we allow her to see him every other weekend.)
The problem with the c/s system, is it assumes that NCP's don't want to do whats best for their kids. My DH would go without, and I would go without at times to make sure cs was paid. Now it looks like our whole family (DH, me, SS and our 2 sons) will go without to pay c/s to a woman who doesn't have a child to take care of. Can you explain that one to me?
first thing one would have to ask,is how can a person be defined as a non-custodial parent when that person has said child for 50% of the time, it does not fall within the deffinition or meaning set forth by congress, or under the United States code. Alaska does the same BS, for which they are now being sued in the 9th circuit.If you ever have a chance to read the Cooperative agreements as mandated by congress under title IV-d of the Social Security Act you will find it has nothing to do with the child, nor did it ever, the system was set up to generate revenue for the state,(which is another reason why the Cooperative agreements were never made public, nor disclosed)
Even the U.S Supreme court has continiously held knowone has a absolute right to support, it is all administrative, and the courts are forbidden to review, unless the Secretary of Health and Social Services has stipulated otherwise.
Also under section 3.1 of the cooperative agreements(agreements with the courts of said state and the agency) the courts have to by contract rule in favor of the administartive agency in every case or be penalized for not meeting the stipulations set forth in said contract, its all revenue for the agencies, and nothing can or will be done untill people start reading and aking questions.
Before I even read the other responses, please allow me to answer with our reasons. Yes,I am the step-mother, but I treat my step-children with NOTHING but love, and give them everything they ever needed and more. HOWEVER, my husband has been trying to lower his child dupport for over a year, or maybe even two now. He has 4 children, and 2 are now grown. The 2 youngest receive $1200 a month, plus his ex gets $600 from his military retirement (almost half). It was ok in the beginning, after he retired from the military, he had a great paying job and could afford it. Although, the money is not and was not being used on the children. His ex has a job as well, and she has lowered her rent to $600 a month, and has no car payment. What she does have... is 13 credit cards like Ginny's and Newport News (women's clothing-not for the kids). Her MINIMUM monthly payments are over $600, that just her minimum, and just over her rent. The court does not care her spending habit, and since we pay for her rent, groceries, utilities, and then some.... she doesn't even bother to put her paycheck towards the credit cards principal. We have to still buy the children clothes since they aren't sent when we finally get visitation. Anyway, leading to my point... last year, my husband's job was downsized, and low and behold, we are still waiting to get into court for a child support reduction. It has been over a year now, and we are being charged for arrearages. She has gotten half of every check he has had since losing his job last year, which has actually totalled over $10000 in just child support, but that isn't $1200 a month. She claims that with her income $2190, and the $600 of retirement, she still needs the $1200 to make ends meet. My husband found a great new job, with an established company and great benefits, but it is alot less than he was making before. She is still fighting us in court for $1200, leaving us with just over $900, before any overtime. We wouldn't mind, if the money was being used for the children. We found out from the Escambia County courts, that the custodial parent does not have to show the support is being used for the children anymore, as long as they are being fed.
Anyway, I am sorry for lashing out at you, but it is a sensitive subject.
My husband gives EVERYTHING to his children, and you know, since we had to move out of town for employment... The children only call at Christmas or just before birthdays... Surprising? It's heartbreaking!
I agree, college can be handled other ways, and should not be put into child support monthly, unless they are close to that age. Do you know what my husband's ex would do with that nice little extra chunk of change... it sure wouldn't be there when the children were ready for college. There's also other options to help make it affordable. LIke you said, we live paycheck to paycheck also. My first two step-children went to college for free until they were 18 because they maintained high school grades well enough to attend college part time. That is alot of studying for them, but they wanted it, we didn't push it. Now, my oldest step son has already graduated with honors on his Bachelor's Degree (at 24 yrs old) and gone on to Seminary, with help from the family, but also his church, that he also works part time at. So, if we would have been giving his mother extra money for college, he still wouldn't have seen it! If you want to save for your children's college, why couldn't you put it in your savings account until it's necessary, and maybe even gain a little interest? Anyway, I guess it's just my opinion, but some people make it with less than $1000 child support each month. :)