SPARC Forums

Main Forums => Father's Issues => Topic started by: olanna on Nov 05, 2007, 01:49:17 PM

Title: As an NCP, do you feel that child support orders are just and fair in your case and that no matter what, the CP's lifestyle should be maintained for the sake of the children?
Post by: olanna on Nov 05, 2007, 01:49:17 PM
Title: RE: As an NCP, do you feel that child support orders are just and fair in your case and that no matter what, the CP's lifestyle should be maintained for the sake of the children?
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 05, 2007, 08:38:31 PM
Of course, you started with a very biased position.

"no matter what, the CP's lifestyle should be maintained for the sake of the children" doesn't even come close to representing what I said. Nor does your top choice "the system works well is 100% accurate" represent my position. Furthermore, the smattering of reponses you get is not representative of the population as a whole - since people who post here are far more likely to be ones having a problem.

Yet, even with your blatant attempt to bias the results with your statement AND with the known fact that people with an axe to grind are far more likely to respond to polls like this, you're still wrong. Even on your biased test, less than half of respondents say that the system doesn't work at all - not the 90% you claim.
Title: Gee, Mist or Sunshine...whomever you are
Post by: olanna on Nov 05, 2007, 10:39:20 PM
Give it time! Polls take more than a day or two...

Here are some of your replies...

"Not automatically, but when circumstances change you are free to request a change.

But I'm not sure that support SHOULD drop. Child support is recognition that children are the responsiblity of both parents and that the children should receive a reasonable amount of support. If they move to an area that's cheaper, it simply allows them to live better - and I don't think that's inherently wrong."

"But even that is a moot point. If you have kids, it's your responsibility to support them. If you had kids and were raising them at a reasonable middle-class level, divorce should not be an excuse to plunge them into near poverty living if you can afford to support them reasonably well."
Title: Poll should be in one place
Post by: MixedBag on Nov 06, 2007, 06:56:00 AM
don't you think?
Title: Both sides of this...
Post by: ocean on Nov 06, 2007, 11:47:19 AM
I am/have been on both sides of the fence....
I do not think that the system is fair. Some of my reasons:

*Child support should be a federal law. There is so many differences between the states and people tend to move. Why should a kid in NY get supported until 21 (or 22 if still finishing college) and then in another state a child gets supported until 18?

*I AGREE with the way my state says that if my ex has more kids it does NOT affect the child support for our children. He knew his responsibilities BEFORE having more BUT some states the child support lowers for the first children.

*If NCP is on-time with payments it should NOT be on their credit report. I agree it should go if there is non-payment.

*In my state child support is calculated by percentage taking in NO account of how much time NCP spends with their child. SO if we have Skids almost half the month, no credit is given. (Some states do have this.....this is why it should be at the federal level)

*The system works to an extent but there are MANY issues with it. Especially when there are orders with two states involved.

*Children need to be supported by BOTH parents and when a divorce situation happens, it falls to the NCP. Who is collecting from the CP and making sure that their money is being spent on the child? I am not really taking about accountability by the state but the CP is responsible too for the buying the basics.

I do not agree that is has to be up to the same standards as the marriage was. Hard times comes up in families. Kids need to have their basics covered in both houses. Just because I get $$ every month for them does not mean they have cell phones.

We have debated a lot of the above issues and you will not please everyone but there are a lot of issues with it and MANY people have had crazy situations that takes years to fix through the state's CSE and the courts....
Title: Don't completely agree
Post by: olanna on Nov 06, 2007, 12:03:41 PM
You can only vote once on each board, meaning if you visit both boards you get to vote two times, but each board is going to represent only one vote. Some people only visit particular boards, so I posted it on the two boards I felt were most inclined for discussions such as this.

For a long time, I only visited one board and never even looked at the others.  I am sure there are many that do the same, as some very different reasons bring us here...but the most common are outrageous CS orders and fighting for the right to see the kids.  

Title: and ....
Post by: Davy on Nov 06, 2007, 12:51:18 PM
... there the is no CRIMINALIZATION  should a SM CP lose her job and can not help provide her portion of support to the children.   No hounding by CSE, no court appearances, no lost of driving privileges, no jail time, etc.  

... SHE will be ENTITLED to government assistance and social services.  
Title: RE: and ....
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 06, 2007, 08:26:54 PM
As would a male CP.
Title: RE: and .... OK I'll repeat the post
Post by: Davy on Nov 06, 2007, 11:49:44 PM
...  no CRIMINALIZATION should a SM CP lose her job and can not help provide her portion of support to the children. No hounding by CSE, no court appearances, no lost of driving privileges, no jail time, etc.

The 'system' you love and defend so much is designed without accountability to children or any one so ... no crime.

How does this scenario benefit children ??  
Title: RE: and .... OK I'll repeat the post
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 07, 2007, 06:21:29 AM
I never said that I love the system. I am simply opposed to the concept that the system NEVER works (look at the number of people who said that the system never works. Since I and several others have stated that the system works in our case, then the people who are claiming that the system never works are either so blinded by their own experience or unwilling to consider any facts).

The system is not perfect. But it is designed to ensure that children are supported and that parents get to see their kids. Far more often than not, it does provide that.

Can it be improved? Sure. But even if it were to be scrapped, I see that no one has yet provided any proposal for a better system. It's easy to say that a system is no good. It's much harder to prove that it is AND to come up with an alternative - and no one here has done either of those things.

Here, let me show you how it's done:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/assessing-CS-debt/execsum.htm

Just a few facts from this study:
-89% of child support obligations are being paid on time in CA.

-Of the 11% of obligations that are in arrears, 15% are erroneous (the parent doesn't owe anything). 11% of the 11% account for more than half of the arrears - which means that a very small number (1.2% of the total child support obligations) parents owe more than $30 K in arrears.

-57% of obligors owed less than $5 K in arrears.

-Only 22% of the obligors (2.4% of the entire population) had low or no income - but the study was unable to verify that all of them truly had low income since it had no mechanism to look for unreported income.

Yes, the system has problems. But the stuff you're complaining about is NOT that common. More importantly, if you stop worrying about yourself and think about the kids for a change, you'd see that 89% of the time, the system is doing what it's supposed to.

Oh, and I'd be interested in your explanation of how child support payments are going to improve if there are no penalties like loss of driving privileges, court appearances, 'hounding' by CSE, etc for not paying your child support. Even a moment's thought would say that the only thing this could do is reduce the number of children being supported.


Title: RE: and .... OK I'll repeat the post
Post by: jilly on Nov 07, 2007, 08:53:20 AM
"-Of the 11% of obligations that are in arrears, 15% are erroneous (the parent doesn't owe anything)."

If I understand the original post correctly, this is exactly the problem.  The State is trying to collect money that has already been paid and the payor is having a heck of a time convincing them he doesn't owe the money.
Title: My ex is the NCP
Post by: cinb85 on Nov 07, 2007, 09:44:18 AM
He does NOT pay his child support payments (owes over $35,000), yet he is ENTITLED to government assistance and social services.  Apparently it goes both ways!
Title: RE: and .... OK I'll repeat the post
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 07, 2007, 10:19:33 AM
>"-Of the 11% of obligations that are in arrears, 15% are
>erroneous (the parent doesn't owe anything)."
>
>If I understand the original post correctly, this is exactly
>the problem.  The State is trying to collect money that has
>already been paid and the payor is having a heck of a time
>convincing them he doesn't owe the money.


So in 1% of the cases, there's an error. And those errors were readily identified by the surveyors. There's nothing in the report that says that 'the payor is having a heck of a time convincing them....'.

I agree that this is a problem and should be addressed. I don't agree that an error rate of 1% constitutes a system that's broken beyond repair.
Title: RE: My ex is the NCP
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 07, 2007, 12:27:27 PM
Absolutely. The system has problems. I've never claimed that it's perfect (nor has anyone else).

But the evidence is that it works most of the time.
Title: RE: My ex is the NCP
Post by: Davy on Nov 07, 2007, 12:38:38 PM
Uhm... You just confirmed my point since HE owes over $35k.  Why doesn't the government and/or social services provide support for children of NCP's like they do for CP's.

I have a friend (retired) that volunteers for social services thru his church. Much of his caseload are CP's that have lost their jobs.  In almost all cases the CP is receiving full support.  He establishes a workable budget, works with utilitiy companys, apt. managers, helps  with child care arrangements, medical issues, etc. etc. etc.  At times
he ( and his still employed wife) make cash donations in desperation.

In MOST cases the NCP was DISENFRANCHISED years ago and has no idea the condition of his children while becoming a government statistic as a 'payor' or 'obligor'.  
Title: He didn't lose his job.
Post by: cinb85 on Nov 07, 2007, 12:53:17 PM
He works under the table so they can't go after him for support because he claims that he has no income.  He also works under the table, so he can get welfare, rental assistance, etc.  

My ex knows the condition of his child because I keep in touch with his family (I would keep in touch with him if I KNEW were he was at - he hides his residence so they can't arrest him for failure to pay support).  When I DID know where he was living last year, I kept in touch with him trying to get him to develop a relationship with his daughter.  He can't be bothered.
 
Title: RE: He didn't lose his job.
Post by: Davy on Nov 07, 2007, 01:24:15 PM
OK OK I'll repeat the post again to help you keep on topic :

... no CRIMINALIZATION should a SM CP lose her job and can not help provide her portion of support to the children. No hounding by CSE, no court appearances, no lost of driving privileges, no jail time, etc.

The 'system' you love and defend so much is designed without accountability to children or any one so ... no crime.

How does this scenario benefit children ??

Cindb your post also points out another huge failure in 'the system'.

It's very nice of you to try to get him to develop a relationship with his daughter so 'THEY' CAN ARREST HIM'.  Please try to explain how the child or any one benefits.  It appears you have bought-in to spoiled goods.
 
Title: RE: and ....
Post by: Davy on Nov 07, 2007, 01:36:35 PM


<<< As would a male CP. >>>

Dad  : Ok kids here's a large box of laundry soap.

Kids  :  Can we stretch into breakfast tomorrow morning ?!?  
Title: RE: and .... OK I'll repeat the post AGAIN
Post by: Davy on Nov 07, 2007, 01:40:36 PM

... no CRIMINALIZATION should a SM CP lose her job and can not help provide her portion of support to the children. No hounding by CSE, no court appearances, no lost of driving privileges, no jail time, etc.

The 'system' you love and defend so much is designed without accountability to children or any one so ... no crime.

How does this scenario benefit children ??


 
Title: I'm not defending the system.
Post by: cinb85 on Nov 07, 2007, 01:59:11 PM
It hasn't worked for me.

You assumed that I want him to develop a relationship with his daughter so they can arrest him.  That's not true.  I could have had him arrested last December, but I was hoping that he would do the right thing and start paying support.  He has since moved without notifying the courts or his child of his new address (in an attempt to hide from the CS office).    When I moved I was "required" to notify the court and the NCP of my change of address.

In NJ if the NCP spend a certain amount of time with the child, they can get a break in their CS payments, so spending time with his daughter would only benefit him (not to mention the child).

Our child has NO idea that her father has ever been arrested for non-support.  If he developed a relationship with her, it would be a win-win situation for all of us (him, our daughter, and me).
Title: RE: I'm not defending the system.
Post by: Davy on Nov 07, 2007, 02:39:22 PM
>> Our child has NO idea that her father has ever been arrested for non-support. If he developed a relationship with her, it would be a win-win situation for all of us (him, our daughter, and me). <<

"A win-win situation for all of us "  Exactly !  Excellent !  And thank you !
Amen !

So basically and generally speaking the entity that is causing the division between a daughter and her father and her parents (or former partners) is our benign government policies.  

The SOCIALISTS among us that desire government control of the people will say the system works.  The rest of us, the great majority, are living proof the system does not work for children and parents.

FYI I've always been an advocate of parents supporting their children and coached many fathers likewise.   If this helps .... regardless of how some act out ... me thinks the hurt runs deep.

Thanks for sharing !  
Title: I'm sure that's true in alot of cases, but...
Post by: cinb85 on Nov 07, 2007, 02:51:24 PM
I don't think that it is our benign government policies that is causing the division between our daughter and her father.  The CS office doesn't bother him at all.  They don't even try to collect any money from him anymore (even though there is a CS order in place), yet he still ignores his daughter (and all of his other children).  I honestly think that if all of his CS cases were dismissed today, he still wouldn't have anything to do with his children.  Sad, but true.

I DO think that the system works for "some" people, but it definitely doesn't work for me in my situation.  Not sure what a good alternative would be.  

I would like to believe that "the hurt runs deep" is true in our situation.  Not that I want my ex to feel hurt, but I would hope that he would feel some remorse for neglecting our child.  Unfortunately, I think that he just doesn't care.  Sad thing is that he has 7 children and they all have suffered due to his neglect.  Our daughter is the oldest and she's starting to realize that he has never been there for her and I hope to god that he wakes up very soon and starts developing a relationship with her.

My original post was just to let you know that here are NCPs out there who aren't fulfilling their obligations (not due to financial problems, but just due to not wanting to).  In my case, the NCP gets all kinds of assistance, yet I have never been eligible for any help.  I worked THREE jobs when our daughter was a baby just to pay the bills, while he collected welfare and received rental assistance.  When I tried to get temporary assistance, the pretty much laughed in my face.

Title: RE: He didn't lose his job.
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 07, 2007, 03:15:08 PM
>OK OK I'll repeat the post again to help you keep on topic :
>
>... no CRIMINALIZATION should a SM CP lose her job and can not
>help provide her portion of support to the children. No
>hounding by CSE, no court appearances, no lost of driving
>privileges, no jail time, etc.
>

Yep. That's really going to help with CS compliance rates:

"NCP, we can't lock you up, we can't make you go to court, we can't take away yoru driving privileges, we can't even call you to ask you to pay, but I'm sure you'll continue to pay all the time just as if we COULD do those things."
Title: Are you really that thick?
Post by: olanna on Nov 07, 2007, 10:18:32 PM
If the CP can't provide, he/she doesn't have any repercussions such as loss of a driver's license, judgments, jail time...etc...He/she can fall back on the state for assistance, among other things.

The playing field between CP and NCP is very unlevel.  CP's have much power GRANTED by the court system.  It's too bad the playing isn't more level.  Until then, the current system isn't fair and isn't working for most people.
Title: CS or AF?
Post by: Qwkprlspnr on Nov 08, 2007, 12:23:44 AM
I'm not currently ordered to pay my Son's BM CS. I do anyway. Attorney's have been hired and fired for over a year now trying to sort everything out. I have retained one who has stuck with me through this from the beginning. BM is on her 3rd. Unfortunately for our 1.5 yr old son, he doesnt  know  his father, yet ....and the CS that I send to BM , I was told by her, covers "her attorney's fees". I pay CS to be a responsible father. I pay my attorney to represent me so that one day I will have a legal , court protected, relationship with my son. Apparently I am also paying someone to take that right away. CS should go directly to child care providers, grocery stores, clothing stores, school supply stores,Schools. In other words DIRECTLY to a childs neccessities. Not the PRP's checking account,especially if a Judge has'nt ruled on  the issue. Different situation, same frustration.Thank you for sharing, and thankyou for letting me rant onyour post. In case everyone reading and posting didnt notice, I'M Back! and more desperate than ever  for helpful insight and  witty, hard hitting, unbiased advice and opinions. TGFSPARC Deltabravo!
Title: RE: and .... OK I'll repeat the post
Post by: Davy on Nov 08, 2007, 02:12:55 AM
>>>Yes, the system has problems. But the stuff you're complaining about is NOT that common. More importantly, if you stop worrying about yourself and think about the kids for a change, you'd see that 89% of the time, the system is doing what it's supposed to. <<<

Yes I'm fully aware the system is doing what it is supposed ... create
revenue generating income (example government job programs) by disparaging children.

Personally, I've always advocated supporting children ... I did not need a government worker to order me to do something I was already doing and had done all their life at a much higher amount then was ordered.

What you and your system call CS was not an issue in my case.  It became real evidence in my wife's boyfriend parental termination case (ex-wife's) when it was proven that my kids support money was used to pay his CS and the remainder was used to buy a case a day.  Note that your system never refunded  the approx. 10K to my kids.

Moreover you should consider this post as a small sampling of evidence.  A huge majority of people and children across the nation would have experienced like characteristics in your broken system.

Children and parents don't exist to promote someone's self-serving ego.

BTW, you are simply making a fool of yourself while trying to present as evidence a "make-work Ad Hoc report" especially containing a disclaimer as to authenticity.  I doubt seriously that even HHS intended  this report to be used as evidence on a Shared Parenting internet site.
Geesh !

   
>>>Oh, and I'd be interested in your explanation of how child support payments are going to improve if there are no penalties like loss of driving privileges, court appearances, 'hounding' by CSE, etc for not paying your child support. Even a moment's thought would say that the only thing this could do is reduce the number of children being supported.<<<

Nevermind ... I don't think you can comprehend.
Title: RE: and .... OK I'll repeat the post
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 08, 2007, 06:03:24 AM

>Yes I'm fully aware the system is doing what it is supposed
>... create
>revenue generating income (example government job programs) by
>disparaging children.

True to form, there's no evidence to back that up.

>
>Personally, I've always advocated supporting children ... I
>did not need a government worker to order me to do something I
>was already doing and had done all their life at a much higher
>amount then was ordered.

That's nice. If everyone was like that, we wouldn't need CSE. Unfortunately, not everyone's like that.


>BTW, you are simply making a fool of yourself while trying to
>present as evidence a "make-work Ad Hoc report" especially
>containing a disclaimer as to authenticity.  I doubt seriously
>that even HHS intended  this report to be used as evidence on
>a Shared Parenting internet site.

And, yet, you've never been able to show any errors in the report. As it is, it's the only evidence that's been presented.

There are several ways to discredit a report. Show that the data is wrong. Show that the analysis is wrong. Show that it's not representative of the entire population. Show that the assumptions are wrong. Lots more.

Unfortunately, "I don't like the results" is not a rational refutation of a study.
Title: RE: Are you really that thick?
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 08, 2007, 06:05:24 AM
>If the CP can't provide, he/she doesn't have any
>repercussions such as loss of a driver's license, judgments,
>jail time...etc...He/she can fall back on the state for
>assistance, among other things.
>
>The playing field between CP and NCP is very unlevel.  CP's
>have much power GRANTED by the court system.  It's too bad the
>playing isn't more level.  Until then, the current system
>isn't fair and isn't working for most people.


Another opinion that you've failed to show is typical of a large portion of the population.

No one denies that you're not happy with the system. I'm simply saying that you haven't shown that your particular experience reflects the experience of the population as a whole. In fact, the only evidence on the table says that your experience is NOT representative.
Title: And neither is a majority of the board....
Post by: olanna on Nov 08, 2007, 04:35:46 PM
People come here because they can't believe this is happening to them...either CS awards are too high, they can't get a minimum to support their kids and/or they can't see their kids.

The population here is huge...wonder why that is?
Title: RE: And neither is a majority of the board....
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 08, 2007, 06:59:11 PM
>People come here because they can't believe this is happening
>to them...either CS awards are too high, they can't get a
>minimum to support their kids and/or they can't see their
>kids.
>
>The population here is huge...wonder why that is?
 
I think you must have failed statistics.

There are perhaps a few dozen regular posters on this board. There are tens of millions of divorced couples in the US alone.

Do the math.
Title: RE: And neither is a majority of the board....
Post by: olanna on Nov 08, 2007, 07:28:15 PM
A few dozen?  LMAO...

You failed math!

Title: RE: And neither is a majority of the board....
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 08, 2007, 08:42:41 PM
>A few dozen?  LMAO...
>
>You failed math!
>
>

Why don't you tell me what percentage of the US divorce population is posting here.

Hint: it's a tiny, tiny fraction.
Title: RE: and .... OK I'll repeat the post
Post by: jilly on Nov 08, 2007, 09:58:09 PM
>>"-Of the 11% of obligations that are in arrears, 15% are
>>erroneous (the parent doesn't owe anything)."
>>
>>If I understand the original post correctly, this is exactly
>>the problem.  The State is trying to collect money that has
>>already been paid and the payor is having a heck of a time
>>convincing them he doesn't owe the money.
>
>
>So in 1% of the cases, there's an error. And those errors were
>readily identified by the surveyors. There's nothing in the
>report that says that 'the payor is having a heck of a time
>convincing them....'.
>
>I agree that this is a problem and should be addressed. I
>don't agree that an error rate of 1% constitutes a system
>that's broken beyond repair.

I didn't say there was anyting in the report that says that the payor is having a heck of a time convincing them.

I was talking about my understanding of the ORIGINAL POST that started all this.
Title: RE: And neither is a majority of the board....
Post by: olanna on Nov 08, 2007, 10:21:57 PM
Gee, I am so enlightened now.  I forgot how happy and satisfied all divorced people are.  It totally escaped me with how many atty's are going hungry because everyone is so satisfied with the court system they don't need them anymore!  Oh man...I have been corrected.  

Yea, Mist, we are all just as happy as shit.  Negate everything anyone says differently because obviously we just don't know how great we all have it.

Oh yes, I guess those packed court rooms with divorcing couples show the system is working beyond our wildest imaginations!

Hey Waylon, you might as well throw the lock on the gate here and shut it down...we decided Mist is right...everyone is happy and it's working for all of us.  Can't imagine why this board ever started in the first place.


Title: RE: And neither is a majority of the board....
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 09, 2007, 07:49:39 AM
I see you're still confused with the concept that SOME people are unhappy but that doesn't prove that the entire system is broken.

If you figure that one out, get back to me.
Title: How about a break?
Post by: SPARC Admin on Nov 09, 2007, 10:58:37 AM
I think we've flogged this subject pretty thoroughly and everyone knows where everyone stands. :)

How about agreeing to disagree, taking a break from this for a while, and maybe unpinning this topic?

I know everyone here has strong feelings on this subject, but I don't see anyone changing their position anytime soon and the discussion is starting to get a wee bit acrimonious. :)

Maybe everyone should take a deep breath, relax for a bit, and then maybe come back for another go at it in a day or two. Just a suggestion.

Title: RE: As an NCP, do you feel that child support orders are just and fair in your case and that no matter what, the CP's lifestyle should be maintained for the sake of the children?
Post by: ohu812 on Nov 10, 2007, 08:30:27 PM
I have been on both sides. I was the NCP and paid every dime of support on time, carried medical insurance, and paid for most everything for our BD (even though courts didnt order it). The BM had her on medicaid anyway and was using meth. When I finally got custody there was no food in the house(but BM was on food stamps), no utlities on for 6 months, living in a condemed house, and BM and boyfriend tested positive for meth. Now I have custody and she is well taken care of but BM doesnt have to pay as much as I did (because she was always on welfare). The laws arent fair but they are consistent. The one thing I would like to change is if a parent is paying support and the CP gets neglect substantiated then they should owe the NCP all the money back. My BD went without food but I paid her BM weekly (support) to cover food.
Title: This is precisely why...m
Post by: Giggles on Nov 13, 2007, 08:30:48 AM
CP's should have to account for the spending of the CS!!!  Before everyone gets in a tizzy...I'm a CP!!  I have no qualms what so ever about saying when and how I spend the CS I receive....it's not that difficult since I don't get that much....and 100% of what I get goes to my child!!  My DS's before and after school costs are $350 a month, I get $275 in CS...enough said!
Title: RE: This is precisely why...m
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 13, 2007, 01:46:03 PM
The only problem is that this creates a lot more work with little benefit.

In most cases, the amount being provided for CS is only a small fraction of what it really costs to raise a child. Let's take your case. You're getting $275 / mo in CS. You pay:
$350 child care
Housing
Food
Clothing
Insurance
Unreimbursed medical
Transportation
Vacation
Gifts
And countless other things.

Since it's incredibly obvious that you're paying far more than you're receiving, what benefit is there to requiring documentation?

I have seen only a very tiny number of cases where the CS comes anywhere near what it costs to raise a child, so there's no benefit to requiring documentation of the costs.

Sure, there is a very small number of people who don't spend anything on the kids and it might be remotely possible that they receive more in CS than their housing, food, clothing, insurance, etc costs. But if they're that dishonest, it's not that hard to get fake receipts, anyway. And I can't believe it happens any significant amount of time, anyway.
Title: What some people think
Post by: Ref on Nov 13, 2007, 06:22:38 PM
is that the support money from the NCP should equal 100% of the cost to raise a child. This, at least in Florida, is completely untrue. It is based on % of income. DH is to pay 75% of the support and BM is to provide the remaining 25%. Because BM is selfish and a total loser, she thought the 75% that DH was sending should not only be 100% of SD's costs and she didn't have to finacially contribute, but it should also pay her most of her costs. How do I know? I am an auditor and she provided her finanacial affidavit for a court case that showed not only did DH cover 100% of SD's costs but over 50% of BM's.

In my eyes, by her refusing to work and living off the money that DH sent for PART of SD's care, she was stealing from her own child.

Many CP's are also under this misconception only to complain when the child isn't getting 100% of the support from the NCP. It is rediculous to put all of that on the NCP. You get $275 in CS. That may be perfectly reasonable if you are to contribute a greater percentage of the support based on your income.

I just wanted to mention this because it seems to illude so many people, especially CPs.

Best wishes,
Ref
Title: RE: What some people think
Post by: olanna on Nov 13, 2007, 10:18:47 PM
Bravo, Ref.

Just as I said to the judge...so if I am paying $1800 a month, for a 10 year old healthy child, that means it costs $3600 to raise my son????  And in the county where my son lives, the average income per household is $1500 a month???

Title: RE: What some people think
Post by: MixedBag on Nov 14, 2007, 06:42:15 AM
Ditto...

I don't remember how many times I read from "them" that it costs more than XX (what I was paying) to raise a child!!!

And my brain immediately said "What about YOUR contribution"

I just know that HAD we stuck to guideline support, I think I would be receiving too much when you take both sides into consideration and knowing what it took to live for one compared to now what it takes for two.
Title: RE: What some people think
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 14, 2007, 06:58:49 AM
>Bravo, Ref.
>
>Just as I said to the judge...so if I am paying $1800 a month,
>for a 10 year old healthy child, that means it costs $3600 to
>raise my son????  And in the county where my son lives, the
>average income per household is $1500 a month???

Where do you get that? In most states, your payment depends on relative incomes. It also depends on the number of days the child is with you in some states.

And the cost of raising a particular child is not a function of average household income. The state legislatures and courts have determined that the amount of support is dependent on the parent's financial circumstances.

Let's say you've got a kid who has been in top private schools for many years, been involved in lots of extracurricular activities, lots of expensive vacations, etc. The position of most states is that, as much as possible, the child's lifestyle should be maintained. No one ever said it costs $3,600 per month to maintain a child at basic levels. But it's easy to believe that some children cost $3,600 per month.

You may not like that and one could easily argue against it, but that's the standard almost everywhere. If you could afford to support a child at a certain level before the divorce, you should be able to support them at a similar level after. There are always extreme cases (loss of job, etc), but the courts make provisions for those circumstances.
Title: I'm with you...m
Post by: Giggles on Nov 14, 2007, 08:32:33 AM
 and NO I don't think that the CS should equal 100% of my son's costs.  In my case, yes, I do make more than his father and do carry the lion's share of DS's costs.  

I'm just saying that there are some CP's that get skrewed by the system as well....like I did!  When X and I split, DS was 10 months old and CS based on our combined incomes was set at $275 a month.  Mind you DS is now 10 and his father and I were making CONSIDERABLY less.

A couple years ago, I found a program through the government that helps low income individuals with buying a home.  Part of their approval process is to count all means of income so I had to list the CS I get.  The program wanted a copy of the court order.  I looked through all my paperwork and realized that my lawyer skrewed up and never filed the court order for Child support so there wasn't one even though the judge set the support amount!!!  So I went through CSE to have one established since his father moved away.  It took over a year to get it established....I figured that the CS would go up to about $400 a month due to both of us making more....NOPE!!  Come to find out...DS's father's GF works for the court system up in his area and somehow got the court to only order the CS amount to be $275 (the original amount) and that there were NO arrearages...eventhough there were because he missed payments after the time I filed....it did not get back dated to the time of filing...so CP's do get skrewed as well.

DS's Basic Monthly expenses as I figure them to be are:
Child Care:  $350
Housing:  $255
Food:  $250
Clothing:  $25
Utilities:  $45 (Heat, water, electric)
Entertainment:  $20
Transportation:  $20
Medical:  $105
Total: $1070

I pay almost $800 a month for my DS...which is 75% of his costs...so I still would have no problem documenting my spending of the CS...since clearly I do pay way more than the NCP!!!
Title: since you listed it out...
Post by: MixedBag on Nov 14, 2007, 11:25:30 AM
I remember way back in the beginning of when I started posting on the boards (on a different one), listing out (too) what I thought I was spending on the girls etc...

And how folks just tore it apart....

Which made me re-think my position.

For example, I bought a 3 bedroom/2 bath home.  Son moved in with me.  Did I go out and buy a bigger home?  NOPE.  So...how much of the house payment can really be attributed to him?

Don't wanna open a can of worms, o.k.  

But there's different ways to look at it -- so when tables and formulas were put in place, I thought "good thing" -- UNTIL I realized that the NCP is expected to pay waaay too much according to the forumulas which means CS is really partially alimony in disguise.

Title: That's not what she said....
Post by: MixedBag on Nov 14, 2007, 11:27:24 AM
This was her personal situation and what happened to her.
Title: RE: That's not what she said....
Post by: olanna on Nov 14, 2007, 12:32:40 PM
Yep. And Daddy wouldn't work. He lost his last job for stealing from the company and failing a drug test.  Told the judge he simply couldn't find work...but it was expected for me to provide for both him AND my son...and his new wife and child.
Title: I know what you mean...m
Post by: Giggles on Nov 14, 2007, 12:40:00 PM
the way I calculated his "housing" cost was in my area I could get a 1 bdr for $850 a month.  Since I have 2 kids, I must have a 3 bedroom so my Mortgage is $1360 a month.  I subtracted the $850 from the $1360 and divided that in 1/2.

I agree that some NCP's are paying partial alimony....that is why I don't think the current system works right.  There are just way to many variables and a lot of the time it really depends on the judge you get and if he/she is having a good day.
Title: RE: I'm with you...m
Post by: olanna on Nov 14, 2007, 12:41:24 PM
My Dman (you remember him?) likes new skate boards, his Blackberry Pearl, and we have every gaming system made....well, except the Wii which I might get for a group gift this Christmas.  I don't think my ex overpays. It's a fair amount, even if I do cover most of the cost.

I don't care.  His Dad is a good guy and my son loves him very much. S and I have a wonderful working relationship. Not going to cloud that with asking for more money through the courts.  We have pretty much worked everything out ourselves.  Even down to additional time, and whatever else is appropriate.  I really like my ex's new wife, and she loves my son.  It can work without the courts involvement.
Title: RE: I'm with you...m
Post by: Davy on Nov 14, 2007, 02:08:02 PM

.... YES and will WORK BETTER with out government involvement.

IF we as a society could just get them out of our lives and STOP them from promoting the break down of the family unit.

Really appreciate your post !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: RE: I'm with you...m
Post by: olanna on Nov 14, 2007, 04:12:11 PM
Thanks Davy.  That has been my point through the entire discussion. Having the government involved in our personal affairs is inappropriate.  The courts promote a huge disconnect by offering up large money awards to a party that is already angry and upset.  And all in the name of children.  And as with my wife in law, the income she receives in the form of alimony, is double taxed.  He pays taxes on it, she gets a percentage of his gross and then she pays taxes on that money as well.  Yes, he gets to use it as a deduction..but that is far from a tax credit.  

I want the government out of my life, as its already too involved as it is.  
Title: Sorry. I wasn't very clear
Post by: Ref on Nov 14, 2007, 09:41:51 PM
Giggles,

My point was not directed at you. I just wanted to say that NCP shouldn't be responsible for 100% of the financial burden despite what some people believe.

I understand that you don't feel that way and I am sorry if it came across as me pointing this out directly to you. It really was more for some others who might not understand.

Best wishes,
Ref
Title: Just a question,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Post by: Kitty C. on Nov 14, 2007, 10:30:35 PM
Besides the point that I have a serious problem with 'maintaining a certain lifestyle' when incomes supporting it are drastically changed, I fail to see how it could be remotely possible to even attempt it, when the costs DOUBLE on maintaining TWO homes (CP's and NCP's), when there was only one before.

When couples split/divorce, they live in separate homes, instead of one.  So you have double the cost of everything that entails.  Given that, there is no way possible that 'maintaining the lifestyle the child was accustomed to' can be accomplished, unless both parents miraculously get large pay raises or new jobs with significantly larger wages.

So how can a parent afford to support his/her child financially in the same manner when he/she is now responsible for 100% of housing and related costs, compared to only 50% before (if both parents were equally contributing to the family prior to separation)?  Math isn't my strong suit, but that still doesn't add up for me..........
Title: Sorry...........
Post by: Kitty C. on Nov 14, 2007, 10:31:15 PM
.....my computer's acting up...........
Title: nm....
Post by: Kitty C. on Nov 14, 2007, 10:34:31 PM
.....
Title: nm...
Post by: Kitty C. on Nov 14, 2007, 10:36:41 PM
....
Title: Oh...I understand that...m
Post by: Giggles on Nov 15, 2007, 09:35:34 AM
I was agreeing with you...I have been on this board for many years and I have heard many people complain on how the CS they get barely covers the childs costs...ummm HELLO...CS is only supposed to be a PORTION of the child's costs, the CP is SUPPOSED to pay some as well...some just don't get the fact that they too are responsible for some of the costs as well.

I have a friend here at work who's BF is going through a nasty custody battle.  The BM in his case is getting over $2000 a month in CS for 3 kids and claims that she can't afford to buy them anything...it really makes me sick!!!

Honestly...I wish I got a little bit more in CS and according to the calculators I should be getting more...but that's beside the point.  The $275 I get really doesn't go far and I feel bad having to tell my son I just can't afford for him to do certain things.  He really wanted to join Tae Kwan Do but it would have cost $125 start up and $50 a month...there was just no way.  I did ask his Dad if he would split the cost with me....he of course said no way :-(  Meanwhile he's driving new cars, just bought a house and the only reason the CS is set so low is because it's an interstate CS order and his GF works for the court that set it...oh well.
Title: RE: Just a question,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Post by: olanna on Nov 15, 2007, 10:58:41 AM
One couple I know "shared" the house with the kids.  Think really hard about that...

One week, Dad stayed at the house. The next week, Mom stayed at the house.  They rented a room from someone that they shared when they weren't with the kids.

Now, it worked for them.  But I can't imagine doing that with say, ex number 1.

And they did it to maintain the lifestyles of the children with the least amount of impact on them.  It worked pretty well.  But the parents had NO life of their own.
Title: RE: Just a question,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 15, 2007, 03:56:51 PM
>Besides the point that I have a serious problem with
>'maintaining a certain lifestyle' when incomes supporting it
>are drastically changed, I fail to see how it could be
>remotely possible to even attempt it, when the costs DOUBLE on
>maintaining TWO homes (CP's and NCP's), when there was only
>one before.
>
>When couples split/divorce, they live in separate homes,
>instead of one.  So you have double the cost of everything
>that entails.  Given that, there is no way possible that
>'maintaining the lifestyle the child was accustomed to' can be
>accomplished, unless both parents miraculously get large pay
>raises or new jobs with significantly larger wages.
>
>So how can a parent afford to support his/her child
>financially in the same manner when he/she is now responsible
>for 100% of housing and related costs, compared to only 50%
>before (if both parents were equally contributing to the
>family prior to separation)?  Math isn't my strong suit, but
>that still doesn't add up for me..........

Depends on the circumstances.

In my case, we had plenty of discretionary income and will have less left to splurge now. In addition, ex was not working before and is working now.

The point is that if you have a kid used to a certain lifestyle, using bare subsistence level to calculate support isn't fair to the kid. Whether you can maintain exactly the same lifestyle or not, it doesn't make sense to plunge the kid into near poverty simply because NCP figures that you can live on $27.12 per month.
Title: RE: I'm with you...m
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 15, 2007, 03:59:29 PM
>
>.... YES and will WORK BETTER with out government
>involvement.
>


In your opinion.

In the real world, lots of people don't do anything without the government enforcing it. It's just absolutely implausible that people would be paying MORE support if the government didn't set support levels.

Given the number of NCPs here complaining about paying support, I would venture that without the government enforcing support, things would be far worse than they are now, not better.
Title: RE: Sorry. I wasn't very clear
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 15, 2007, 04:00:42 PM
>Giggles,
>
>My point was not directed at you. I just wanted to say that
>NCP shouldn't be responsible for 100% of the financial burden
>despite what some people believe.
>


That's called a straw man argument. I don't believe I've read anyone stating that the NCP should be responsible for 100% of the financial burden.

So who are the 'some people' you're referring to?
Title: RE: Oh...I understand that...m
Post by: Ref on Nov 15, 2007, 08:21:27 PM
Yeah, there are some characters that post on this board sometimes.

PBFH left DH and moved halfway across the country. He was making $9/hr and she was making about the same. She told him she was visiting her mom and she never came back w/ SD. They had 1 car, which she took on that "vacation" and never returned. They lived in my MIL's house. They had nothing. Years went on, BM didn't work for about 9-10 years. In the meantime DH worked his a$$ off. CS increased due to his increase in income. Guess what NEVER changed? SD's living conditions. She still lived in the projects. She still ate boxed mac and cheese several times a week because they had no groceries. Her mom still drove a deathtrap car. Not only did SD live off childsupport 100% but BM lived off of it too. The increase did no good for SD. The only time anything changed was when BM got a job. Things got a little better for SD. They moved out of project and into a low rent facility. It is a little safer, but not much. BM bought a new car. Amazing what happens when there are 2 incomes. BM didn't think anything of the "fact" that DH was supposed to pay 100% of SD's support. Even after the judge explained to her what DH's financial obligation was and what her financial obligation was.

She just doesn't listen to anything she doesn't want to hear, she will get so defensive she is just blatently insulting or she tries to continue arguments so long that she wins only because you are too tired to argue anymore.

Anyway, this story is boring on this board because so many NCP have the same one to tell. Manytimes over the past 7 or so years, there have been misguided CP's that have to have the child support system spelled out to them.

I have to say $275/month is pretty low. It must be pretty tough. On the plus side, your son will understand the value of a dollar better than those you get handed everything.

I am so happy to know oldtimers like you and Kitty and Mixed are around to offer good advice when people ask some tough questions on this board. Even if someone says something that you guys might not agree with, you are so respectful. Thanks for that.

Best wishes to you and your family
Ref
Title: RE: Just a question,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Post by: Kitty C. on Nov 16, 2007, 12:10:33 AM
Discretionary income???  You're not serious, are you??  If you are, then you need a serious dose of reality, Mist.  Only people in the high income brackets can have discretionary income and still maintain a certain lifestyle.

What I was talking about is the REALITY of the majority of the population and the limited incomes they have after a split.  And don't tell me that there's no way that's possible.  If the majority of the nation's population are so well off as to have 'discretionary income', then why are so many of them in debt and having their homes foreclosed on?  Why is credit card debt at an all time high?  

DH and I had to go to a credit counseling service and cut up all our credit cards.  Two that he had were mainly used during and after his divorce.  That was the only way he could live and those two alone accounted for approx. $30,000.  We got the interest rates knocked down to almost nothing and will have them all paid off within a couple years.  In the meantime, we're paying $1000 a month just for paying them off.  So maybe we'll have $1000 a month of discretionary income when that's paid off?  Hardly..........by then we'll be in our late 40's and just starting to add to the limited retirement funds we already have through work.  And we don't even own property....we can't afford it.

The reality of the majority of today's middle class is getting by by the seat of their pants and praying to God no major catastrophy strikes that could put them in the proverbial poorhouse and rob them of their meager retirement.  As for the kids, they do the best with what they've got........and I'm not talking about the ones who give up and walk away from their kids.
Title: shoulda, woulda, coulda
Post by: Davy on Nov 16, 2007, 01:10:00 AM
Even a casual observer could plainly realized I was adamantly exclaiming to Olanna's positive example of how family matters can function without interference of the government and .... the kids and the family win ... which means YOU, the GOVERNMENT and the INDUSTRY  are HUGE LOSERS.

BTW, this thread had nothing to with NCP's complaining about paying support so STAY OT.  

Try to understand and live in reality.  My oldest son called me 'Dickhead'  when he was a GOVERNMENT OPERATIVE.  Before and after he always called me 'Dad' just like my daughter and youngest son.
My kids scoffed at the government titles.  

When the government TRIED to repaint me as NCP I never complained about the support amount (ridiculousy low) because I functioned as Dad.

When the government TRIED to repaint me as CP I never complained about the support amount (ZERO) because I functioned as Dad.  

Kids want and need a fully supportive/cooperative mom and dad not a ncp and cp in a limited, divisive, non-supportive or uncooperative role.

Here's my definition of 'child support'.  Child support is a recovered amounts of money children shoulda, woulda, coulda received had it not been for the malicious, intentional, and fraudulent actions of government and all the government operatives.  



Title: RE: shoulda, woulda, coulda
Post by: mistoffolees on Nov 16, 2007, 10:41:08 PM
Define it any way you want.

If you really believe that NCPs would pay MORE support on average without the government involved in any way, you're really deluding yourself.
Title: I just wanted to add one more thing
Post by: Ref on Nov 17, 2007, 09:21:27 AM
I am not sure how many CP's believe the idea that it should cover 100%. My mom did, my husbad's ex did, at least two of my friends did. It seems like a lot to me.

I don't even think they think it is fair. For all the women I mentioned, they treat CS as a punishment. I will leave my mom out of it and I told you about DH's ex.

The first friend I was thinking of was married to a super nice guy. They got pregnant after a few months of being married and she miscarried. Their marriage went to hell. It was pretty bad to begin with because my friend has some mental problems. She cheated on him. She told me that she wished she didn't miscarry so that she can sue him for all the CS she could get. (Yes, I am rethinking my friendship). She makes more money than him and she also said she was going to try for alimony.

The second friend of mine seperated from her husband because he cheated on her. She was talking about how she was going to screw him so bad by making him pay for everything related to their special needs son, between CS and healthcare.

It is not only them that I hear this stuff from. Just like as a white person, other white people wrongly think they can wrongly confide in me their racist thoughts, some women think they can confide in me sexist thoughts. I hear it pretty regularly when divoce comes up.

To me the "I'm going to get him for all he's got" mentality gives me some clue that they not only believe that they are not trying to get their fair share for support but additional "punative damages".


Ref
Title: You've got it, Ref............
Post by: Kitty C. on Nov 17, 2007, 07:04:01 PM
I saw it big time with DH's ex for many years.  The attitude that I saw was 'I'm going to hurt you as badly as I feel you've hurt me.'  But the only weapon she had was SS, and she used it for all it was worth.  She didn't have the means to take him back to court for additional CS, so she limited his access to SS to the minimum that the court would allow, which was 4 days a month.  And we only live 2 blocks away!  She also punished SS if we happened to see him (either with her and/or new hubby) outside of our 'allotted time' and SS acknowledged our presence.

It was only when she went through her second divorce did she finally 'see the light' and lighten up on her attitude.  For years I was the wicked stepmother and DH was evil.  Now she asks me for advice and to sit in on school meetings and calls DH to mediate between her and SS when they are at odds.  Literally a 180 degree turnaround..........
Title: Just adding to the numbers.......
Post by: Everyside on Nov 17, 2007, 07:26:19 PM
my Dh's X came right out and said it.   "The only weapon I have to hurt you with is SD and that's what I'm going to use."   DH didn't argue about the money ($900/mo for one child in Alabama) or the things she wanted from the divorce.  He only wanted to see his daughter.  That was too much for her.  

Title: Awww...m
Post by: Giggles on Nov 19, 2007, 08:20:13 AM
You brought tears to my eyes!!

Thing is, I see both sides and I feel that untill you have that perspective, you never really fully understand.  I am NCP to my OD so I know what it's like to pay support and thankfully, my X and I get along pretty good where she is concerned.  It's pretty tough though being a Non-Custodial MOM...OMG the comments that I've heard from other women is just astonishing...The majority of the time they say "I would NEVER give up my child"..*ugh*..I love when I get those statements because I blast them and make them feel like they are less than an inch tall!! *rolling eyes*  I say to them "I didn't give up my child!!!  At the time I wasn't able to provide a good life for her and my X was...so I put HER needs before my own...I guess that isn't important to you?  It was VERY important to me that SHE be taken care of and she was!!  I suppose you don't love your child that much???  You would deny your child just to spite your X?? That's really sad!!!  I feel sorry for your child!!!!"

As for the CS set at $275...sure it would be nice if it were higher and then we'd be able to do more "fun" things.  Thankfully, I do have a great job and I make fairly decent $$.  DS is not suffering, he is fed, has nice clothes, nice home and gets to do "fun" things every now and then.  When I grew up...my parents set $$ limits on things (had to with 5 kids in the house)...and I do the same with my kids.  It boils down to want or need....if they NEED shoes...I will buy them...but on my terms...If they WANT more expensive shoes...then they have to pay the difference.

I'm excited about Christmas this year!!  I'm not buying the kids any toys, no clothes and I've told them straight up....This is all you're getting for Christmas..hehehe  We're going to Disney this year!!  What's even better is that my OD will be with us as well!!!  This was X's year to have her for Christmas, but when I found out we got the Condo....I called him and asked if we could trade...he said sure!!!  I wish more people would work together for the sake of their kids....it would make a lot of this Court BS go away!!!!
Title: I always felt my X's CS order was fair...
Post by: Genie on Nov 23, 2007, 01:43:58 PM
but he wasn't ordered to pay a huge amount either.  When you think that was his half of supporting the children and BM should provide the other half, I always thought it was fair.  I know though that BM was repeatedly telling the children their Dad should get a "better" job because she didn't feel he was paying enough.

Title: RE: Are you really that thick?
Post by: dipper on Nov 30, 2007, 11:54:04 PM
I respectfully disagree with the comments that the CP doesnt have repercussions if they dont provide for the child while the NCP does.  This generalization is not true to every case.

In fact, I have long said that as a CP, if I didnt take care of my children- feed them, give them clothes, a place to sleep - CPS could and would take them from me.  But, my ex on the other hand, owes over $10,000 arrears from job hopping and they have never did anything to him.  

the system is faulty in a lot of ways.  For one, I believe they have a tendency to set CS high.  I dont care if the NCP makes $3,000 and the CP makes $500, why shouldnt the CP have to get a better paying job and be a more equal parent financially?  And why does it take more to raise the child just because an NCP makes $3000 as opposed to $2000?  Expenses for child are the same......so why higher CS?

its also wrong that a NCP can jump state lines and its like they disappeared.  North Carolina will not even discuss case with me, and Virginia never knows whats going on........North Carolina has enforcement, while Virginia retains case....

CS is messed up .....across the board...
Title: RE: Are you really that thick?
Post by: olanna on Dec 01, 2007, 01:44:41 AM
Guess I haven't seen CPS hold the hands of the CP to the fire when kids are sitting in a dark house with no food.  But I have seen the CP be able to get food stamps and public assistance, even when receiving CS. I've never known a CP to have a driver's license taken away or wages garnished if they weren't providing for the kids.  CS is messed up...

You'll get no argument from me. I still say the playing field is really unlevel.