Opinions.....

[cathy]

CP has sole custody of the kids.
CP makes about 5 times what NCP makes.

Should there be any child support paid to the CP?

[ocean]

both parents are responsible for the children. NCP money can go into an account for the children if CP does not need the money and can be used toward colloege, car, ect...

[POC]

Not enough information.

What is the time sharing arrangement? That is waaay more important than the labels that are designated to each parent. Novel idea that children's needs be given precedence of parental labels

[cathy]

Children are with CP 100% of the time.

There is no visitation with the NCP.

[POC]

I am going to go off of the assumption that the NCP was found unfit to spend any time with their kid. In such circumstances, the NCP should pay some amount of child support.

[joni]

Yes, I believe the NCP should pay child support.

For grins and giggles, I plugged your scenario into the CS calculator for the great state of Michigan.  

I put the following variables into the formula, CP makes $120,000 and NCP makes $24,000 a year.  Utilized average joe salaries.

No shared economic formula so days spent with NCP don't matter (general attitude of the state of Michigan.....but I digress).

I gave the CP 4 dependents (CP is remarried and the other 2 dependents are the kiddies from the 1st marriage that live with them as CP).  

I gave the NCP 1 dependent, only themself, they can't afford to remarry or have more children.

Didn't allot for any health of life insurance into the scenario.

Michigan says for one child, NCP pays $250/month, for two children $390/month.  A total of $4680 of $24000 earned paid to child support, 19.5% of gross income.

[cathy]

In this case:

CP is remarried, no other kids

NCP is remarried, has one additional kid. (Oldest child from first marriage lives with NCP, but is 20 years old)

Salaries estimates are close -

CP makes approximately 140K

NCP makes approximately 28K.

[cathy]

What if the NCP was NOT found to be unfit?  Would that change your opinion on child support?

In this case, the NCP was not technically found to be unfit.  There are reasons the children do not wish to visit the NCP and are not forced to.

I'm sure there are some that think the NCP should not have to pay - - - especially since there is no real "need" on the part of the CP.  Really curious as to why or why not.

(And probably fairly obvious, this is the situation I am in with my husband.  Although we initially did not intend to go for child support-- and didn't for a year, we found ourselves facing several ludicrous motions that we had to spend a fair amount defeding against.  We had hoped that by getting child support, we would ensure that at least some of the money that COULD go for lawyers from the NCP would go to the children.)  

Was curious if people thought that the substantial difference in salary, the lack of need on the part of the CP, etc etc - should make a difference in whether child support should be ordered.

[POC]

I've already given you my formula. It would be dificult to me more thorough.

Curiously, what is the court-ordered "visitation"?

[cathy]

And yes, you have given your formula!  I was really more interested in thoughts about whether an NCP without visitation (with - or even without - valid reasons), when there is a large difference in salary such that the CP doesn't NEED child support - -- - if child support should be awarded, or would it seem "unfair" and an unnecessary hardship on the NCP.

The temporary court order (which has been in place 1 3/4 years and would probably be considered to have converted to permanent) gives the mother supervised visitation EOW at her aunt's house.  Standard "after school till Sunday evening".

We included in the order that the wishes of the children would be given strong consideration.  We also stated that the children would be given access to either parent on request.

Both CPS and the children's therapist agreed that the children should NOT be forced to visit their mother.

The kids initially only wanted to go for 1 hour.  We started there, and the oldest one went one time only.  The younger child went for several visits - up to 3 hours, but didn't want to spent the night or the weekend.

We also found out that the aunt wasn't exactly supervising - as she would leave them alone so they could have "privacy".

Straw that broke the camel's back.  We took the younger child to visit one evening.  She called about 20 minutes later, telling her father to "come get me NOW".  Seems her mother had started in saying that she was scared her husband would be killed if he went to prison.  Told the kid that it wasn't that she didn't believe them (about her husband molesting them) but she had to stay with him because she didn't have anywhere else to go.  She then began blaming the kid and her sister, saying that they were to blame and they were the reason she couldn't be with her youngest daughter (her youngest by the child molester)

In therapy, and as the kids have begun to feel safer, we have also discovered that the mother was much more emotionally abusive than we ever suspected.