Why looking to keep c/s low?

[timtow]

"Why would the NCP voluntarily obigate himself to pay an amount that a judge has no ability to award otherwise?"

Because he or she loves the children and is a stand-up type who doesn't have to be told how far he can support his kids; trusts the CP to spend the money wisely on the kids (or makes alternate arrangements for disbursement); and understands it's to the children's advantage if the CP can budget for and plan with the money.  My father, incidentally, did this.  Paid (much) more than was required and gave my mother nearly all the assets, though this would never have been ordered.  I know other stand-up NCPs who do similar.

"Also, the NCP can still pay for extras if he choses to without the extra amount being included in the CO."

True; however, then the CP can't budget to include it, so there's no reliable increase in standard of living for the children.  If x agrees that, say, dd should have bassoon lessons, but then flakes after five months on the cost of the lessons and bassoon rental, I'm stuck either scrambling to pay, or -- if it happens repeatedly -- teaching the girl that there's not much point being disciplined/serious about new things she tries, since she'll probably have to quit.  Given the way my x handles money, I'd be disinclined to start the lessons unless I planned to pay entirely on my own.  I certainly wouldn't base a mortgage payment on it.  He generally means well, but I have doubts that the money would actually make it over here unless it was automatic.

"Do you really think that your Ex will be agreeable to paying CS in excess of the guidelines?"

Well, that's not really germane.  We will see what he does.  

As for the offer -- why do you need to wait for an offer?  You can do the math yourself, figure up what you can skin yourself for, and call it the kid's.  If you've got any kind of middle-class earning & money-mgmt ability, it's going to be better than 150% anyway.  After 18 there are ways to put that towards college extras incl. saving for graduate school expenses and help with first-homebuying or business-establishing, and after 23 one continues to save for both the kid and any grandchildren.  Please.  Yes, of course I would do all that.  This is why I think this whole business of looking to the state minimums is sad.

[timtow]

"Quite honestly it sounds as if you dont need his money to begin with, so why does this bother you?"

This is not, I think, a good way to look at it.  The obligation is absolute.  It wouldn't matter if I made a million bucks a minute.  One of his jobs is to provide whatever he can for her, in a way that is healthy for her; I have the same job.  If she doesn't need the money now, she may need it later. Or she may want it later for school or business.  (All those rich doctors you see?  The young ones are likely walking around $200K in school debt, or more from starting their practices, with the interest meter ticking.  It'll be years and years before they see black.  Some never will.)  She may turn out to be an artist, and that's an expensive way to live; he may be a good enough father to support her in that with savings from childhood.  She may get sick, or have a child with disabilities.  She may even have to go through a nasty divorce from a rich guy with an expensive lawyer after she's stayed home for fifteen years.  Savings from daddy is never a bad thing to have in reserve.  The worst it can do is go unused and collect interest for grandchildren.  

What you say up there is the kind of thinking that helps divorce men from their kids, I think -- the kind of thing that leads people to say, "Well, her new husband is rich, so she doesn't need the daddy's money."  The daddy's money is for the kid, not the mom, and his connection and obligation don't go away because the mom is now married again.  The obligation is part of the connection.  

Oh.  About second jobs cutting into time with the kids -- if there's only minimum visitation -- which I think is generally tragic anyway -- then come on, there's plenty of time in the schedule to pick up extra work or go to night school & get prepped to do freelance or contract work.  

"Also, ask yourself why CS is higher just because a parent makes more money. A combined income of $5,000 means a child needs more to live than a child whose parents have a combined income of $1,000. Why? It is not the child's needs that are being met by that money, but the parents lifestyle. The needs are housing, clothes, and food. And designer clothes are not basic needs...."

No, the needs are education, high-quality care, good insurance, and opportunities to find passions that can become professions.  In other words, the things that lead the child to a rich adult life where she can use her gifts to the fullest, for herself and for others, and protect herself and her kids from hardships.  

I'm finding this to be an interesting conversation classwise.  What I'm putting out here is the ordinary professional-class party line.  It's well-understood there that a kid's education is expensive, from birth to launch, but pays off huge.  That message is not sticking to anything here; I'm hearing in reply a lot of "Parents owe their children food, housing, clothes, love, and no more; in fact more may spoil them."  What it says to me is that there may be a profound class gap in attitude that isn't easily bridged.  Also that it may go a long way toward explaining how rigid we are socioeconomically, how hard it is to move up if you're down, how unlikely it is you'll move down if you're up.

=)  too bad I'm not a sociologist....

[4honor]

When  man goes out and makes a living (or gains income through some means that included making a smart investment -- or investing in private disability insurance), Then he has some pride in "providing for" his family.

Whether he is handing his $$ to the government or to some other entity, he still wants to see the bang for his buck (e.g., what is the money being spent on?) When an NCP (generally the man) hands his $$ over to the CP, he RARELY sees the bang for his buck. Many times they not only pay CS, but they also end up paying for BASICS too, on a limited income. They see their children in designer clothes, but the kids haven't been to the dentist in over a year or the kids need a haircut. They see their kids without properly fitting shoes,  but the CP has just purchased a new vehicle. They are handing over money with no say in how it is being spent and with the possibility that THEY will have to pay it again directly to the store/dentist/barber. If you have to pay for things twice, wouldn't you want a discount on the original bill?

When a misfortune occurs (job loss, unexpected surgery, stock market crash, dishonest accountant embezzles all their funds) they understand that IF the family had been intact, the WHOLE family would tighten their belts and make adjustments.

But that is not the case in divorce. The amount the Ex spouse makes wouldn't change, but the available funds in the NCP household is decreased, while the PERCENTAGE of the NCP's funds going to the CP household is increased.

Some industries are hard hit and many employers refuse to hire those who are overqualified -- so jobs can be VERY hard to find and no amount of smart networking is going to land one quickly. Some people are just not very scholarly, and "higher education" is above their abilities.

Some CP's fail to pull their fair share following the divorce and an unsually high percentage of the "income shares" is apportioned to the NCP -- after a period of time, a recalculation will decrease the amount the NCP is paying while leveling off the incomes in each household. Sometimes lowering support is about being able to afford to have your child eat when at your house.

I do not think I have seen a person fighting the purchase of life insurance to benefit the child, but the complaint is in who is named as the benficiary. It is nonsense to think that ALL CP's are good caring persons, just as it is nonsense to think that all NCP's are deadbeats. SOME CP's are all about the money and in those cases, to protect some kind of future for the CHILD, the NCP is fighting NOT to have to provide an insurance policy payable to the CP. If a trust is made for the child and the policy pays to the trust, that would make sure the child benefits from the $$. That is all the NCPs are battling for.

And paying for braces which are not medically necessary should be a discussion, not a dictated command by a CP. You talk it out and budget it in IF POSSIBLE, not get hit by a bill for thousands.

[mistoffolees]

Please do yourself a favor and start out by being more understanding and less confrontational.

Even when both parents want what's best for the child, there are differences in their ability to pay for the child's needs and their own needs. It comes down to different perceptions of what constitutes 'need'. For example, does your child 'need' a personal nanny, household help, and a prepaid college? You seem to think so. Others may not (I paid for my own college and graduate school - as did my entire famly).

Do you need to take care of your own needs (including planning for retirement)? Yes.

Can someone disagree with your definition of need without you labeling them selfish? You'll have to answer that.

[Stirling]

"Because he or she loves the children and is a stand-up type who doesn't have to be told how far he can support his kids; trusts the CP to spend the money wisely on the kids (or makes alternate arrangements for disbursement); and understands it's to the children's advantage if the CP can budget for and plan with the money. My father, incidentally, did this. Paid (much) more than was required and gave my mother nearly all the assets, though this would never have been ordered. I know other stand-up NCPs who do similar."

Again, you are confusing the law with your own moral and ethical belief system.  

I hope that you won't be too disappointed if your Ex decides not to be legaly bound to pay more than the CS guidelines.  Your Ex can still pay extra if he choses to without being court ordered to do so.  Again I suggest that allowing your Ex to effectively co-parent with you with encourage him to pay extra.

And for the record I gave my Ex over 90% of the marital assets, over 60% of the joint cash flow, and split the marital debt 50/50 in our divorce agreement.  In addition, I am currently paying guideline CS for three children even though we only have one minor child (I never reduced CS when the other two were emancipated).  


"then the CP can't budget to include it"

I see, so the heart of the matter is a control issue.  Part of getting a divorce means that you no longer have control over how your Ex choses to spend his money (over and above CS).  

As far as you budget goes, I would suggest that you only budget for guideline support.  


From your posts it seems that you are fairly new to these divorce related issues.  Myself and others who have responded to you have many years of experience dealing with these issues and are trying to help you, and give you realistic viewpoints.  We are giving you our real life experiences.  I think that your expectations may not be realistic, and judging by other posts many people seem to feel the same way.  Does your attorney think that you have a realistic chance at getting a CS award above the guidelines?  I suspect that the only chance you have of this happening is if your Ex voluntarily aggrees to it, and from what you posted he doesn't seem to be inclined to do so.  Again your moral and ethical beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the CS laws.



"After 18 there are ways to put that towards college extras incl. saving for graduate school expenses and help with first-homebuying or business-establishing, and after 23 one continues to save for both the kid and any grandchildren. Please. Yes, of course I would do all that."

Just curious, do you ever plan on teaching your child to stand on her own two feet and become an independant contributing member of society, or do you intend to subsidize her existance and keep her dependant upon you for the rest of your life?

You don't solve money problems with money.

The bench mark of a successful parent that I use is that a successful parent is one who prepares their child to be an independant contributing members of society as quickly as possible.  

[timtow]

On the contrary.  There are a great many problems that can be solved with money.  Lack of individual access to good healthcare and legal representation is a big one.  Money can buy time, security, health, and a good deal of personal liberty.  Most of the science, technology, government (and it's not all bad; try living somewhere chaotic for a while) and art you live with comes from rich people who had liberty to futz around.   Your movies/entertainment comes from rich filmschool kids.  Regarding which, don't make the mistake of thinking that people work only for money, and will stop working if there's no financial benefit.

Of course the point is not to support a child for life; there's no need to exaggerate.  There is a very large difference between keeping an adult child on the dole and helping the adult child pay for school or buy a first home.  You appear to have done for yourself, and good for you; but many fortunate and successful adults in this country had parents who gave them a boost or a gift from time to time, and stood ready to help them and the grandchildren financially if there was hardship.  My dad did for us when my husband first left work, before we knew the disability would kick in; his help let me stay home and care for my husband and infant daughter instead of putting her in fulltime daycare.  Would she have died in daycare?  Probably not.  But the idea is to do as well for the child as possible, and home care is better than daycare for babies.  (No, my husband was not able to care for her.)  

Values, ethics, mores, and hard realities are what drive the formation of laws, including support formulas.  While my ethics and circumstances may not match with those that make the current laws, to say that laws and ethics have nothing to do with each other is off-base.

I'm well aware, btw, that my ethics and the ethics behind c/s formulas don't match.  Also that in a contest, the law wins.  I'm not planning on budgeting for more than the minimum.  But none of that has to do with my original question.

=)  Your part about no moral sense or ethics being better than another works only if you're a relativist, btw.  And I think if you poke it, you'll find it's a good superficial peacemaker, but not necessarily true.

""then the CP can't budget to include it"

I see, so the heart of the matter is a control issue. Part of getting a divorce means that you no longer have control over how your Ex choses to spend his money (over and above CS)."

That's a magic word, control, isn't it.  No, it's a sensible budgeting and quality-of-life issue.  If the money is not reliably in the budget, I can't plan to spend it on dd.  Not an issue for one-time expenses, but for ongoing expenses it is.  Random gifts of money are very nice, but I'm not budgeting for ___ lessons based on them.  Which may just mean dd doesn't get those things.  If the same amount of $ is there in the support order, then fine, I can expect his half of the costs of ____  will show up, and sign her up.

Actually if X wants to designate the money for certain things for her, that's fine with me.  So long as I know the money's actually going to show up.  

If he regards it as 'his' money, btw, then he hasn't promised it to her, has he. And that's at the heart of the matter.

[Stirling]

"On the contrary. There are a great many problems that can be solved with money. Lack of individual access to good healthcare and legal representation is a big one. Money can buy time, security, health, and a good deal of personal liberty. Most of the science, technology, government (and it's not all bad; try living somewhere chaotic for a while) and art you live with comes from rich people who had liberty to futz around. Your movies/entertainment comes from rich filmschool kids. Regarding which, don't make the mistake of thinking that people work only for money, and will stop working if there's no financial benefit."

You misunderstood what I wrote.  I said, "money issue cannot be solved with money".  Throwing money at a money issue merely enables the person to continue to make poor financial choices.  The examples you gave were non-money issues.

"Values, ethics, mores, and hard realities are what drive the formation of laws"

Actually its lobbying that drives the formation of laws.  

"I'm well aware, btw, that my ethics and the ethics behind c/s formulas don't match. Also that in a contest, the law wins. I'm not planning on budgeting for more than the minimum. But none of that has to do with my original question."

I'm glad to hear that you are budgeting for a realistic CS award based on the legal guidelines.  As far as your original question goes, like I already said each person's unique set of moral and ethical belief systems related to parenting their child will determine their views of how that child should be financially supported.  

"Your part about no moral sense or ethics being better than another works only if you're a relativist."

We live in a relative world so what's your point?  

Moral and ethical beliefs are merely choices.  If those choices no longer serve you, or support the person you want to be, or the life experience you want to have, then choose again!  Adopt a new set of beliefs that do support the person you want to be and the life experience you want to have.

"That's a magic word, control, isn't it. No, it's a sensible budgeting and quality-of-life issue."

By the very nature of CS the quality of life at issue is yours rather than your daughter's since she indireactly benefits from CS.  Remember, all CS is is a redistribution of wealth from one parent to the other.  The child has no legal claim to it, and there are no legal restrictions on how CS is spent.  Also, your daughter is enjoying your Ex's net income after CS since it enhances his lifestyle and she enjoys that lifestyle during their parenting time.  It seems that you would rather have the extra money above CS to enhance your home's lifestyle, at the expense of your Ex's lifestyle, and have your daughter enjoy it their rather than at your Ex's place.  Still seems controling to me.

"If the money is not reliably in the budget, I can't plan to spend it on dd. Not an issue for one-time expenses, but for ongoing expenses it is. Random gifts of money are very nice, but I'm not budgeting for ___ lessons based on them. Which may just mean dd doesn't get those things."

Welcome to the harsh world of divorce and it's unpleasent realities.  Most of us have been dealing with these issues for years.

Like I said before, if you want your Ex to pay a portion of lessons, then allow him to be a valid part of the decision making process.  If you sign her up for an activity and then tell your Ex that he should pay for part of it, I doubt that he would feel much like contributing towards the activity.  Again, part of being divorced means that you no longer have a say in how your Ex spends his money.  If you want him to contribute do what you can so he will want to contribute extra.

"Actually if X wants to designate the money for certain things for her, that's fine with me. So long as I know the money's actually going to show up.  If he regards it as 'his' money, btw, then he hasn't promised it to her, has he. And that's at the heart of the matter."

I have no idea if your Ex will live up to his word if he agrees to pay for things outside of the provisions of the court order.  You should have a better feel for his level of responsibility and reliability, after all you married him.

[timtow]

Well, you're making a number of assumptions, there.  

Re money solving money issues.  See my remark about my father helping us as my husband left work, before we had word on the disability insurance.  Money most certainly solved a money issue there.  Illness cannot generally be defined as "a poor financial choice"; choice is frequently not involved.

Re redistribution of wealth: Yes, I understand how this works.  It only works, though, if you're playing zero-sum.  The idea is net gain for the child, in the form of services, college savings, etc., with me contributing exactly as before, not less than before thanks to increased c/s.   And frankly I'd find the intimation that I'd slack off kind of insulting, if it hadn't made me smile.  (A little sadly, because I understand there are people who would do that.)  I'm standing here in 15-year-old clothes, I've had access to his money throughout the marriage, and he's not too savvy financially.  If I'd wanted to rape him for money so I could live it up, I think I'd have done it a while ago.  Luckily he's not worried about that one either.  Something about that ethical sense again.  

Re x's involvement in decisions on spending the money, I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm trying to cut him out or sock him with bills.  Afaik there isn't much in her life we don't discuss, and where he's absent, it's because he's said he wants to leave it to me.  I don't sign her up for anything without seeing what he thinks, because we're talking about her education, and he's her father.  My proposed c/s budget is about splitting her likely costs right down the middle.  All of them, including insurance, childcare, housing above what we'd spend on ourselves, etc.  We both made her, and it seems to me we're equally responsible.  In fact I've asked him to go through the kid-expenses budget and decide explicitly which things he wants to and doesn't want to pay for if his c/s offer won't meet the total.

My x's lifestyle is more likely to be determined by the state of his health than by the state of his wallet, unfortunately, and I understand that's not necessarily the norm.  If money could fix that one, it'd be well worth it.  He's already got the best treatment/services he's willing to bother with, though, and excellent health insurance.

Personally I think there ought to be pretty good equity across the households, and I've been pushing for more equity for some time.  It's ridiculous for him to have this teeny lousy place while we're living in a house.  Modest house, granted, but clean, quiet, nice, has yard, nice neighbors, good roof.  But he isn't able to take care of a house, not for the foreseeable future.  A 2-br apt is a stretch.   It's one of the reasons he's willing to have her stay with me.  

Gotta run.  Btw, the lobbying has motive forces, too, and interestingly enough they're not just bucks.  I used to work for the US House of Reps, seen it in action.  And thanks for the level & thoughtful responses.

[KAT]

Your theatrics have yet to convince me that you have the best interest of the child in mind. However you have made it VERY clear that you want all the power, control & the money.  Sadly the courts are still rather father bias so it's likely you will get what you desire. Dad will be regulated to nothing more then a visitor & a wallet. Why don't you try asking the child what he/she wants? I bet you would come to find that he would enjoy having both parents equally in his life. You know, the way it was meant to be damnit. Don't you see that the world is going to hell in a handbag because of broken parentless families? Doesn't it bother you that according to statistics children from fatherless households have an extremely high increase of out of wedlock pregnancy, drop out, suicide & incarceration? Apparently the answer is NO. You have yet to make ANY statement that Dad is otherwise unfit to parent the child. The simple answer to what really is in THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD is to offer DAD 50/50 custody with no (or minimal) child support changing hands. But then again financially supporting the child to the best of your OWN ability would be just too burdensome for you. Sad, your child is going to pay for your lack education & career opportunities. Get over yourself & get over the fear of not having a husband to financially depend on before you kiddo suffers.
KAT

[mistoffolees]

I wrong a nasty reply to this because your post appeared to be a response to mine. From what you wrote, I don't think that's the case, so I'm going to assume that it was directed at the original post. If it really was intended for me, you couldn't be more wrong.

As for the content, I agree with most of it - with one exception. You argued that 50/50 with little or no money changing hands is best. I don't completely agree with that. In my case, I make a very good salary and my wife quit work to take care of our daughter. It could be a while before she's making a decent salary again and she'll probably never make more than 1/4 to 1/5 of what I make. In that case (and there are plenty like it), I think the fairest thing is 50/50 with the higher income spouse providing significant support for the child so that the child doesn't have to suffer when in the other parent's home. In my case, I'm continuing to pay 100% of her activities, 100% of her private school expenses, and 100% of medical expenses - even though my stbx is working and we share time 50/50.

Again, I'm assuming that you were replying to the original poster. Please clarify if you really meant to reply to my post.

Thanks.