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.

[momof2]

Yes, whatever the states guidelines for child support are, the NCP should pay accordingly.

[POC]

There is always something different to each case. Your info is not surprising, since women are 31 times more likely to kill children than natural fathers are. But, I was trying to just stick to how things should be applied to all.

If you applied my formula to the case you are talking about, the NCP would not pay too much in CS. That is because his self-support reserve and her income would be equitably taken into account. To say that the CP doesn't "deserve" the money would be to say that she doesn't deserve to earn what she earns. That is a separate matter apart from child support. Whether she is overpaid, or not is immaterial.

If CS is covering the child's reasonable needs (nothing more, nothing less) there is no reason why parents should not share that responsibility. My formula is equitable in all situations. Or, at least it allows for rebuttal in any particular case. So far, I have not heard anything as to why each parent should not share the financial responsibility of their child.

[POC]

This reply is very bothersome. Obviously, you are aware that state guidelines vary tremendously. If you believe one state's guideline formula is equitable, then anything much different than that, by definition would have to inequitable.

[momof2]

Well, you are reading much more into my response than what I intended.  My meaning was that the NCP should pay child support.  Whether the particular state the order is governed by is fair in child support or not, I can't say.  However, since every state has guidelines of what child support should be, that would be the "legal" amount.  I agree, legal doesn't always equate to fair.

[POC]

Fair enough. I certainly took your post as what you personally believed should happen, not what state law says is required.

[LESLIEONE1]

So far everyother wednesday if kids want to come over and everyother weekend

[jilly]

I agree that NCP should pay CS to the CP.  Typically, men make more than women do.  However, that does not negate the fact that a parent (defined as a Father and a Mother) has a legal and moral responsiblity/obligation to support their child(ren).

One issue I have with CS (other than the use of GROSS income as opposed to NET income as we previously discussed) is when there is a subsequent CSO for a child born of a relationship after a divorce.

My situation is that DH has a 7 year old daughter with his Ex.  Prior to meeting me, DH was in a brief "dating" relationship.  She became pregnant but paternity wasn't established until December of 2001. His son was a little over a year old by then. I was 3 months pregnant with our daughter when the paternity test came back positive.  DH was unemployed at the time so his CS for his son was set based on the amount of his unemployment and this amount was withheld from his check.

Meanwhile, DH was still trying to pay the court ordered amount of CS to his Ex ($600.00 for one child!) but was in arrears. She got pissy about it so he filed for a modification and he got a reduction.  She really got pissy then! LOL  (We are waiting for the day she decides to go back for modification.  Now that she and her 2nd husband have separated it could happen at any time.)

In August of 2003, DSS reviewed DH's case regarding his son. Based on DH's financial information they were increasing it.  I don't remember the amount but DH thought it was too much.  At that time we were having extreme financialy difficulties so DH went to court to get them to deviate from the guidelines. The local attorney we had wasn't worth the money we paid him. He knew we wanted a deviation but failed to file a motion to that effect. Anyway....DH ended up having to pay more in CS for his son than he would have if he hadn't fought the findings after review. And that was taking in consideration the child we have together and the CS he pays for his daughter!

So now he's paying MORE in CS for his son than he pays for his daughter with Ex. To add insult to injury, as you may or may not know, when there is more than one child support order in force then ANY money that comes in is prorated between the two.  And, since BM of the son has a higher CS amount she gets the largest cut. Another thorn in BMs side.

Now, as I said, we're waiting for DH's Ex to take him back to court in the near future for an increase.  BUT, when Ex DOES take him back to court for an increase they won't even look at the amount of CS he has to pay for his son.  It's like that CSO doesn't exist because they only look at PRIOR CSOs, not SUBSEQUENT.

I think to get a true financial picture that ANY child support order should be taken in to account and deducted when a modification is requested.  If a prior CSO is considered then a subsequent CSO should be as well.

[reagantrooper]

A tad bit off topic but somtimes Kids need to be MADE to do things.

Giving kids the power to say when and when not they will "visit" a parent is just wrong and will come back to haunt the adults that permitt this.

[FLMom]

I think it's all up to the individual situation.

In my case I am the NCP. I have no problems giving my ex CS--because I'm not giving it to my ex, I'm giving to our kids. Before there was an order in place I did "in kind" payments--- in other words I took care of all of the things he didn't. Yes, ex makes about 5 times what I do.

When the kids needed clothes, school supplies, moneys for special trips--I could go on and on--- I took care of all of that. My ex wanted to receive that money instead, but with that he also took on the added responsibility that all of those items were now 50/50. It's not that I don't WANT to give my oldest $20 to go to the mall with her friends, now it's that I CAN'T. That was the choice her father made, but to tell you the truth I have NEVER told her to go ask her father for the money. Our change jar is now rather sparse.

I'd also like to show the other side of the coin as far as letting children decide who they want to live with. My ex decided after he remarried that I didn't need to be in our children's lives. After 3 years of 50/50 I was suddenly stuck with EOW, despite our custody agreement. It took a year to get to court, when our oldest said that she wanted to be with BOTH of us---50/50.

As far as the particulars in THIS situation, if a mother allowed her significant other to abuse the children and turned a blind eye, then I'd consider her just as guilty. Forget the aunt, I'd tell her she could see them during their family counseling sessions only, until she got her head on straight.

[cathy]

And I agree.  If this were a case of the kids just wanting to hang with their friends instead of going to see their mother - well tough.  Get your rear in  gear and go.

But this is a cause where the mother was emotionally abusive and neglectful.  She did NOTHING about her husband molesting the girls and does not believe the girls.  

Nope - no way are they going to be forced or made to visit their mother.  Ain't happening.  I really don't see it coming back to haunt us - but if it does, it does.  We are doing the right thing for these girls - by what our hearts and heads tell us, but what CPS tells us and by what their therapist tells us.

[raf]

Here's an interesting scenario:

Son lives w/Dad. Mom NEVER sends anything for anything (no birthday gifts, no Christmas gifts, nothing). Also never visits. Court eventually takes CS (min. $50/mth) directly out of her paycheck and threatens contempt if she doesn't pay up on her half of medical bills that are now a year old.  Court also tells her to pay our attorney bills.

Dad asks Mom to help w/school supplies and school fees of  $200. No reply from Mom. Same response from Mom concerning med  bills.

Son goes to live w/Mom when Mom doesn't want to discuss an increase in CS.

Even before son arrives at Mom's, we get an  email from Mom suggesting a separate bank account for the son that she wants us to contribute to so that when she thinks $10 Kmart shorts will do, but son wants $50 Nike shorts, son can get the more expensive shorts!!!

Some nerve. Funny how all the rules change when custody changes.

Child support is to pay for the child. Custodial parents know what these expenses entail when they get custody. To whine about them afterwards, is infantile.

[raf]

Belongs on previous thread! Sorry