Welcome to SPARC Forums. Please login or sign up.

Mar 28, 2024, 10:19:13 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Insanity of CS calculations

Started by cathy, Apr 08, 2006, 06:58:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

cathy

Using the CS calculator on the NC CSE website, the following is possible:

CP of 2 kids with salary    $10,000/month
NCP with salary               $1400/month
NCP CS: $397.00

Now let's give the NCP a raise of $100/month:

CP of 2 kids with salary                               $10,000/month
NCP with another biological child with salary    $1500/month
NCP CS: $200.48

Did you catch that?  NCP's salary went UP, the amount of CS went DOWN!!  

That is due to this rather insane, but I'm sure well intended, provision for low-income parents.  Basically, if the NCP's salary falls below a minimum amount, only the NCP's salary is used for calculating the CS.

Of course, after they go above that minimum level, the standard "combine the income to determine the overall CS" goes into effect.  Then the percentage of the overall salary respresented by the NCP is much smaller and results in a much smaller CS amount.

How crazy is that?!?!?! And how can it be right that an NCP is expected to pay almost $400 in CS when they only make $1400??  And that $400 is going to a parent that makes $10,000?  






ocean

Hi,
 I guess since the CP has another child the CS goes down. We had a debate on the other board over this and I was in the minority. I really think that once a person divorce occurs and CS set that should be it. Having another child AFTER if that parents choice and should not affect the CP at all.

cathy

In these examples, I didn't put in any additional children for either NCP or CP.

In my real life situation, my husband is the custodial parent and does not have additional children.  The PBFH is the NCP and has an additional child and she does get credit and that lowers the amount of child support.

And yes - I agree with you. I think additional kids should not be considered.  It is a choice the parent makes, knowing the obligation they already have to existing kids.  Knowing that obligation, if they can afford and want more kids, so be it.  

(Just an odd twist here on my personal situation - - In this state, you have to be separated for a year before your divorce is final.  PBFH was 8 months pregnant when that year was over.  My husband delayed the divorce so that she could be covered under his insurance, since even if they divorced and she remarried - it would have been an existing condition and not covered under her new husband's insurance!  Technically, from a legal standpoint, this child would be considered to be my husband's child until paternity was contested!)

ocean

You have a VERY generous husband because there is not way that I would have allowed that to happen! LOL

cathy

When we were dating and he told me this, I knew he was either the most generous person in the world......or the dumbest!  I'm still now sure which!

But I can tell you, he wouldn't spit on her if she were on fire now.

4honor

There is no reason a child living with a parent who makes $10K a month needs any CS from the NCP. The NCP should be using the CS to improve the kids' lives while they are with the NCP... or placing the money in a medical account for the actual use of the children. (not that I think your DH is after the NCP's money or anything.)

And a CS order should never place any NCP under the state need amount for one person at poverty level. However, for the amount to calculate LOWER at a higher salary is ludicrous.

AND I disagree with you both about subsequent children... because between the calculation of being able to afford another child and the present... LIFE HAPPENS and the next child is already there. So you are saying that when life happens and NCP loses a job, the subsequent child(ren) should starve so that previous children don't have to be affected? rather than EVERYONE in the family sucking in their belt and EVERYONE making it through? The "you should have thought about that before you brought another child into the world" mentality is all fine and dandy in theory, but we don't live in theory, we live in reality... and every child should be EQUALLY provided for. I do not condone a reduction "just because" an NCP has another child, but if there is financial calamity, downward modification should be easier to get.  Enough of that -- getting down off my soap box.

Back to the original, be glad you aren't in WA. in WA, the CP would be paying the NCP a small amount to help when the children are in their care those 4+ days a month for visitation. (Would be about $150).
A true soldier fights, not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves whats behind him...dear parents, please remember not to continue to fight because you hate your ex, but because you love your children.

cathy

And why do you think there is reason for a parent not to financially support their child?  Why should the amount one parent makes relieve the other parent from having to provide financially for their children?

In our case, my husband actually makes more than $10,000/month.  And no we don't need child support. The biggest reason we even filed for child support is that the NCP allowed her husband to molest these kids, didn't believe the kids (and thus allowed it to continue for 18 more months until they finally told us), and is STILL married to the sorry SOB.  AND she then filed motions against us for contempt because we didn't force the girls to visit her.  If she can afford to do that, she can afford to pay child support.

And for subsequent children - I'm sorry, but they don't "just happen"!   If you can't afford another child, don't have one.  Sure life happens, jobs can be lost - - but that is a different situation.  I'm not sure how you see that when an NCP loses a job, the "new" kids starve and the  "old" ones don't?  If the NCP loses their job, they have NO income so neither the old kids or new kids are being supported by the NCP.  The only reason the "old" kids wouldn't suffer is because their other parent supports them.  And the "new" kids have another parent as well!

And so far as every kid being equally provided for - that is not reality!  Children are not provided for equally - even if they share a parent.  In the example given with the CP makes $10,000 a month and the NCP making $1600 -- - do you think any "new" kids the NCP elect to have are provided for equally to the kids that are with the CP?  Of course not!

And it goes both ways - - if the CP has additional kids, their income is reduced as well in the CS calculator so the NCP pays MORE.  Is that right?  Because the CP elected to have more kids, the NCP has to pay MORE??  So you have a person that has to pay more money for the decision their ex makes in regards to having more kids - something they have absolutely no say in!

Insanity - total insanity.


4honor

You appear to be advocating that NCPs are not entitled to sex (cause sex causes additional children). And since most NCPs are male, that men are not entitled to sex or additional children following the break down in a previous relationship if a court has ordered them to pay support.

You ask if I think an NCP should be paying more for a CP's subsequent children. You and I are not talking about the same thing. CS is for the kids. If the CP has additional children, then the amount of $ they spend directly on the older children is reallocated --- it goes down without affecting what the NCP spends. IF the NCP has additional children, the amount the NCP spends on the older children should also go down without affecting what the CP spends.

I am advocating that a child grow up believing that FAMILY is important - whether half sibling or full sibling -- and that we make sacrifices for family. Rather than teach them to grow up thinking that custody is all about the money and not about the relationship.

I am more than a little perturbed that DH has to pay 3-4 more years for a kid that is failing high school... a kid that raped my children for almost 2 years cause his mother told him to make our lives a living hell, and it didn't matter how, cause his little brothers weren't REAL anyway... that fighting to change the order would cost more than we would pay between now and the end of it... that BM's favorite thing to say when DH can't pay for whatever "extra" she has cooked up this week is... "well if you couldn't afford the other kids you shouldn't have had them." Thing is, when I was working, I made more than DH. I was laid off because I couldn't do my job -- I now suffer from chronic debilitating migraines. I spend 6 out of 7 days a week with them, most bad enough I cannot see. DH didn't know that when we married and had our kids... nor did I. So now that they are here, the larger chunk of change should go to the rapist with the CS order instead of to pay for the food, clothing, and therapy the younger kids need?

I would hate to live in your little BLACK and WHITE world.
A true soldier fights, not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves whats behind him...dear parents, please remember not to continue to fight because you hate your ex, but because you love your children.

cathy

First, I wasn't jumping on ANYONE - I was stating my opinion.

And please point out where I said NCPs are not entitled to sex - how utterly ridiculous.  But surely you are aware that there are methods and ways of having sex and NOT becoming pregnant?  I personally have been having sex for almost 25 years and have never been pregnant.  (And trust me, when my husband was an NCP, we still had sex)

And I also never said that NCPs (or CPs) should not have children - I simply said they shouldn't if they can't afford them.  It shouldn't affect their existing obligation.   Are you sure that you are actually reading what I posted??

Again - we are talking the same thing - CS.  Using the calculator to determine CS (at least in this state), additional children FOR BOTH CPs AND NCPs are taken into account.  That means that if the CP has additional children, their income is adjusted (downward) and the amount of child support they are responsible for is reduced - and thus, the amount of money the NCP has to pay is INCREASED!  What the CP does with their money is their business - I was only commenting on the affect on the amount of CS paid.

Now - so far as my little "BLACK and WHITE" world -- you have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about.  I have LOTS of responses for you on that comment, but I will just keep them to myself.

And your little sidetrip on FAMILY is nice - but totally unrelated to the discussion.   The discussion was CS.


lucky

Let it go, 4honor.  Don't stress yourself out about this right now.

[em]Lucky

Lead your life so you wouldn't be ashamed to sell the family parrot to the town gossip.
- Will Rogers[em]
Lucky

Lead your life so you wouldn't be ashamed to sell the family parrot to the town gossip. ~  Will Rogers

Genie

the NCP in this case is VOLUNTARILY not working a job to her earning potential and VOLUNTARILY not working a full week and making what she can to support herself and her children.  This NCP has been doing everything possible to get out of paying any CS at all.

Cathy briefly described the situation to another poster above but if you new the facts you would know that the NCP does not see the children at all and the other child is very close to be an adult if not already.

This is not about having more children and them being equally taken care. We have had that conversation on this board already.  And putting the money in an account for them or their medical bills is not possible in this case.  

There is no financial calamity in this situation, it is the NCP willingly putting herself in this financial situation in order to not pay for her children.

4honor

SO I answered her post based on the information she gave.

She stated that it was ridiculous that an increase in wages made for a decrease in CS. I agreed that was ridiculous.

Also, I stated that I did not agree with her views that other children should not be considered in CS calculations as additional children in intact marriages meant less money per capita.

At the time I posted, Ms. CP SM had not put the facts of her case up. THough because I was speaking in GENERALITIES rather in her specific case. my post was on point.... She started her post in GENERALITIES and I kept my post there, until I got flamed for stating I did not agree that additional children should not be considered.

As for whether BM in the OP's case pays or not, the relationship should be terminated -- and then CS would not be an issue. It is not needed in this instance, except to keep BM from filing harassing lawsuits in court. The NCP IN THIS CASE has abdicated her position by her lack of protection on the kids. The CS is a non-issue. It is not financially needed and the kids are better where they are. CS only keeps the BM a part of the equation... which is not in the children's best interests. But I digress.

Does the OP have a legitimate concern in thier specific instance? YES. But should she be advocating that second children mean less and should not get an equal portion of their parent's income as any other sibling (especially on a website dedicated to a CHILD's right to EQUAL access to each of their parents)? that would be a big NEGATIVE.

It does not matter if your father is demon spawn or your mother is in the running for beyotch of the year. It does not matter if you are 17 years and 10 months or 17 minutes 10 seconds old, you should get the same consideration in court when your father's (or in this case Mother's) $$ is doled out. Since CS is not based on the child's needs, CS orders are an arbitrary number based on what a person makes relative to what another person makes. There is nothing in the calculations that considers the cost of living in an area, or whether a child who has parents living at certain levels would spend the given amount on the needs of the child. The guidelines are in need of reform. I think it would take some higher math algorithms to properly put together guidelines that would care for every child.

Sounds like BM in the OP's case is really messed up. This is a mother capable... but not doing anything. I agree that those who CAN, SHOULD. I also think that getting a reduction in CS for calamities should be EASIER to get even if it is on a temporary basis. As things are, you spend 4-5 years of the reduction $$ on GETTING the reduction (if you can).  When a split family with half siblings living in two households hits a calamity, the PAYING parent should get some immediate relief upon a showing of need. That way when the parent gets on their feet, they are not facing a huge arrearage and are unable to dig themselves and the children depending on them out of the hole. The RECEIVING parent would have to pull just as hard to make up the slack, or pull in their belts too. It happens, life is unpredictable. IF the calamity happens in the household of the RECEIVING parent the adjustments are already being made... the child is already getting all of their portion from the NCP household and they will get the reduced amount directly from the receiving parent's household based on their NEED.

I am advocating for instances where both parents are fit and have an AVERAGE income. When a guideline is set it should be a MEDIAN - not  a worst case scenario situation like the OP or like mine.

Guidelines SHOULD take subsequent children into consideration. Let's face it, a child that is older but comes late to the CS table (as in the case of a one night stand 10 or 12 years ago that the BM finds out after testing 20 men that the NCP is the father) they should get just the same consideration as any of their otherwise "legitimate" half siblings.

Genie, I have nothing personal against the original poster. I just found her position on what should be the NORMAL CS order to be unreasonable. Especially since her personal situation torques the heck out of NORMAL.



A true soldier fights, not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves whats behind him...dear parents, please remember not to continue to fight because you hate your ex, but because you love your children.

cathy

I did not flame you, and if you took it that way, I apologize.  I was simply disagreeing, stating my point of view and asking for clarification on your statements.   I personally felt that you went on the defensive and somewhat attacked me, twisting my statements into things I did not say or imply.

Personally, I still think the NORMAL CS calculations should not take into account additional children.  That is just my opinion, and I think that should be the case for additional children of the CP and/or the NCP.  You disagree.  

In a normal situation, both parents agree and adjust to life changes.  But in a divorce situation, you have split that and there are now 2 families.  I don't know that I think it is fair that the decisions and actions of one family should have an effect on members of the other family.  Sure, there is gray area because in this case, the kids are members of BOTH families.

Children come with a financial responsibility, just like most things in life.  Since it takes 2 people to enter into accepting this responsibility, any changes (especially voluntary changes such as having additional children) to that responsibility should be a joint decision by those 2 people.  That is typically no longer possible in a divorce situation.  

I especially think this is wrong in the case of the CP having additional children.  Now, in theory, a CP can have more and more kids, requiring the NCP to pay more and more in CS for kids that aren't the NCP's!  (This is due to the CP's available income being reduced to account for their additional expense for the additional kids).  At least in the case of the NCP having additional kids and child support being lowered, there is the assumption that the money NOT being paid will be used to help support the NCP's kids.

Now - back to the more personal side of things - one that we are in TOTALLY agreement about :-)    The first time the biological mom tried to get out of CS, we asked that she terminated her parental rights.  We are thinking about asking again, although I'm sure she would not agree to do that.  She basically has no parental rights - she abdicated those when she did not protect her kids (and I didn't even go into the emotional abuse on her part).

And I also agree with you that CS calculations have nothing to do with the actual costs of the kids.  I think the whole manner in which CS is calculated is flawed badly - although I don't have any real answer on how to fairly calculate it that would cover all situations.  And even if I did, I'm sure others would disagree!!

Oh - one other thing.  We have been on the other side of the coin as well.  Before the girls came to live with us, we were paying child support for 3 kids (there is a 21 yr old son as well who is no longer in the CS equation).  For these 3 kids, we were paying $1390/month.  Was that money used for the kids?  Of course not!  Especially considering that we had to provide clothes/etc for them for close to 50% of the time, any extras they did or had were provided by us.  So we have been on that side of the equation as well!

On a personally note, I obviously do not know the details of your personal situation, but the little you shared sounds horrible.  This probably isn't the appropriate forum to discuss this further, but I am curious - were there any criminal charges brought in your case due to the sexual abuse/rape?


POC

CS guidelines should seamlessly apportion an equitable amount of money between the parents for the reasonable needs of children across the time sharing and income distributions that are reality in today's society. If the CP is making $10,000 per month and the NCP $1,400 per month, and the child spends 13% or more time with the NCP, then the CP should pay CS to the NCP. That is because the NCP's share of joint income is roughly 12.3%.

The mathematics to determine what is equitable is very simple.

4honor

A true soldier fights, not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves whats behind him...dear parents, please remember not to continue to fight because you hate your ex, but because you love your children.

leon clugston

there will simply be no true or worthy equitable distribution from CP-NCP, or NCP-CP, untill the states and the goverment are out of the equation, and to where there is no financial, or pecuinary favotism for these guys to base such awards off of.The first factor in any situation, reguadless of ones standing in the administrative world, is the fact one either parent can at anytime, and rightfully so choose not to acheive there potental goals, or monetary maximus, this incorporated with the fact that so many people use the money not in proportion for the child"en" compared to what they receive, defeats any standing of credibility of it being for the child, and comes down to a simple maintence award for one parent or the other.

POC

To the extent that children deserve to be kept safe and healthy, the government has valid authority to order child support be paid from one parent to another. Beyond that, the government is over-stepping its authority by imposing a standard of living. Unless it's a matter of safety or well-being/health, the government should not dictate for what or how much parents spend on their children.

leon clugston

you are one hundred percent rright, however the validity of the intnet of the goverment is limited to the deffinitions sought forth for a proper resolve and as stated befor there is no true deffinition of a custodial, noncustodial parent anywhere in the CFR's or under the Federal code(statuatory law) so the ending result is simplily its for money, and has nothing to do for the general welfare of the kids.