Although you believe that house payments (rent), utilities, etc. are not expences for the child you are incorrect.
The Social Security Administration (a Federal Agency) determined that when a child recieves money from SSA for being a dependent of a disabled parent, the parent is entitled to funds from the child for rent, utilities, groceries, car insurance (because the vehicle must be insured to transport the child) and such.
The way Social Security determines the amount the child is to give the parent is the number of people in the household divided into the amount of each thing. So in a case where there are 2 people in the household and say rent is $600 the child's money would pay half or $300. If the child does not bring in that amount, then the parent is entitled to the entire amount minus the amount reserved for medical expences of the child which generally is $25 per month but can be more.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has made a very similar ruling regarding minor children's funds recieved from a tribal income source. The BIA made a determination that the minor child's income could be used as the families sole source of support when income and resources are insufficient to meet basic needs.
Your Quote was "Although the noncustodial parent has a duty to provide financial support, the custodial parent must also demonstrate that he or she is using that money for the care and upbringing of the child".
My assumption is that if a custodial parent can show that the child has a roof over his/her head, utilities are on, and the child has food, you would have a difficult time proving that the CP was not using the money for the care and upbringing of the child.
JMO, probably not a popular opinion... but one weighed with knowledge of what federal programs have ruled.
TM
The Social Security Administration (a Federal Agency) determined that when a child recieves money from SSA for being a dependent of a disabled parent, the parent is entitled to funds from the child for rent, utilities, groceries, car insurance (because the vehicle must be insured to transport the child) and such.
The way Social Security determines the amount the child is to give the parent is the number of people in the household divided into the amount of each thing. So in a case where there are 2 people in the household and say rent is $600 the child's money would pay half or $300. If the child does not bring in that amount, then the parent is entitled to the entire amount minus the amount reserved for medical expences of the child which generally is $25 per month but can be more.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has made a very similar ruling regarding minor children's funds recieved from a tribal income source. The BIA made a determination that the minor child's income could be used as the families sole source of support when income and resources are insufficient to meet basic needs.
Your Quote was "Although the noncustodial parent has a duty to provide financial support, the custodial parent must also demonstrate that he or she is using that money for the care and upbringing of the child".
My assumption is that if a custodial parent can show that the child has a roof over his/her head, utilities are on, and the child has food, you would have a difficult time proving that the CP was not using the money for the care and upbringing of the child.
JMO, probably not a popular opinion... but one weighed with knowledge of what federal programs have ruled.
TM