Messages

I'm just telling you how we got here.

The attorney is correct.  However, the idea is to do both.  Partly so that your children will be able to save for their own retirements instead of paying off student loans till they're 50.  Not unusual anymore for kids to walk out of school owing $600-800/mo on loans.  And the thing is, if you start early and limit the number of kids you have to what you can afford to put through school, it's not that hard.  For my kid, at a state school, we're looking at saving about $150/mo. (and praying tuition inflation doesn't run more than about 8-9%).  The challenge will be in persuading her that she doesn't need some fancy private school with nice landscaping.  I've worked for public & private universities, and I think that unless a kid needs a lot of handholding, there's no substantial difference for the bachelor's degree.  (There is a difference for graduate degrees, but it's not a public/private thing.)  Anyway, I don't intend to pay for a private or out-of-state education, but there won't be anything to stop her from signing for loans.

This whole college-funding discussion has been quite eye-opening, for me, btw, and has me thinking it'd be wise to educate my kid in debt before she gets near 18.  A line of credit from Bank of Mom, with interest and late fees charged, should give her some taste of how long it takes to pay off large loans and how endless the cycle can be.  I think the loans -- and their easy availability -- are consigning a lot of kids to the underclass before they even get started.

It's an unfortunate consequence of the behavior of some NCPs in the past.  College used to be a standard bargaining chip (accept this crazy low CS, or make some other concession; otherwise I won't help pay for college).  Legislators decided parents should not be able to bargain with their kids' college education.  Hence law.  

I'm all for a law that says all parents have to pay.  If that happened, I suspect we'd have some fairly serious tuition reform, the return of some sense in hiring (plenty of jobs don't need a BA, but it's used as a screen), and changes at the federal level to put back some of that pre-Reagan college funding.  

It'd also reduce the odds of the kids borrowing themselves into bankruptcy before they even make it out of school.  I just talked to a credit counselor here about a grad student with $100K in credit-card debt.  Nevermind school loans.  And I passed up a prospective tenant, another student, who turned out to have similar debt, when I checked her credit report.  She couldn't have been paying the minimums on her debt given her income, let alone rent.  And these are the same kids who're going to get hit with increasing FICA as more boomers move into retirement.

Not good policy, eating your young.  

Those are two different matters.

1.  The NCP's income is the main determinant of CS.  Look at the tables, and you'll see.  The CP's income can vary widely, and it has little effect on what the NCP will pay, a matter of a few percentage points.  

2.  Neither parent can voluntarily reduce income to distort CS.  That's what imputation is about.

WOW, that all sounds totally illegal.  How skeezy.  I'm sorry you had to go through that.

About the dollar difference in support after imputation: If you go by the tables, assuming they've got your husband's net income correct, then even if she's imputed at fulltime at that wage, the support's not going to be knocked down by more than $125/mo or so.  (946 / .357=2738, 2738*.3= 821)  You have to think about the worksheet deductions, and no doubt she'll find some beyond taxes (don't forget that if she were working fulltime, childcare would be an issue).  So if it's worth it to you to fight about that, you need to think about what representation would cost and where the break-even is, keeping in mind that she can look for another review in two years.

If they don't have your husband's net income correct, then that's another story.

JVondrak, I'm not trying to put down your support, but I am saying that if you look at what it costs, $250/mo per can't be the whole show or anywhere near.  They raise their food; well, that's not free.   The meat doesn't put itself in a freezer, and the veg doesn't grow itself.  I also get hand-me-downs for my daughter, but I do find myself at Target buying her underwear, shoes, pj's, other things you don't want pre-worn, and that stacks up fast.  A house costs money to maintain and heat, and usually if you've got kids living with you, you're paying more than you would if you were on your own.  It's great you pay for the activities, but there's also gas to get there, food and drink, equipment, etc.  

What does CPS say about the complaints?

I'm all for being able to make sure the money has some benefit for the kids, but I disagree about the x's husband's income.  He may be deciding to support the x, but he still has no obligation to either her or the kids; they've already got a dad who's obliged.    

I don't think this is going to win me any friends here, but I don't believe the "but we have a child too" argument is a big winner.  It seems to me there are foreseeable liabilities attached to having a family with a divorced parent who has minor children, even if the divorce is a beautiful one, and usually divorce is not beautiful.  Again, not to judge your situation, but I just don't think it's a compelling reason for why NCPs shouldn't pay support by the tables.  

About childcare: It doesn't sound like this makes any practical difference for you right now, but keep in mind that if she were working fulltime, unless there's someone else around to care for them, you'd likely be paying for before/after-school care.  Around here that runs a couple hundred a month per kid, so frankly it could be that you're better off with her home.

Yeah.  What I'm trying to tell you is that even if she were imputed at fulltime at that wage, it wouldn't make a lot of difference in your numbers.  CS in IA is based primarily on NCP's wage, not CP's wage.  See what a lawyer says.

Well, that was vitriolic for no reason, but $250 apiece was not coming close to paying for  either kid's basics, unfortunately.  Likely not for half, either, once you figure up food, housing overhead, clothes, gas, non-covered med & dent and all the rest.  Somebody else really has been supporting those kids financially.  Taking care of kids is also work, even if you're a piss-poor parent.  But none of that is what the OP asked about.

You can try IA's judicial branch website for legal aid clinics.  Also keep in mind that though her husband may make more than yours, her new husband's income is not at issue.  The kids aren't his, and are not his financial responsibility.  IA does not look at the spouse's income in calcs.  

You don't say why CSRU is increasing the support, but going by the tables, I don't think you're going to see a large change by imputing income to her.  At that wage, by the time you get to a net income for her, you might move from something like 36% of your husband's net to 31%, but that's about it.

Why was the order increased, if I may ask?

I'd be quite happy for him to turn over the money to her college savings plan, rather than passing it through me.  Waiting till 18 is not very nice to her, since frequently that kind of 'plan' leaves a kid scrambling when the promised money doesn't show at the last minute, and the FAFSA deadline's come and gone.  And of course he's entitled to his own ideas.  But in our case, it'd say quite a bit about a guy if he chose to fund his own third crack at university instead of funding his daughter's education.  

(note to ref: the college-payment requirement had to do, I believe, with cutting out a way for well-off dads to negotiate scandalously low c/s.  Used to be a lot of cases of guys threatening not to help with college as an arm-twister.  So another example, I suppose, of support rules based on the worst parents' behavior.)

I don't think "strong enough to make it" has very much to do with steering your kid away from crippling debt.  There's no reason to put those kinds of obstacles in a kid's way for the hell of it; it's not character-building.  College kids used to build plenty of character on a tenth the debt level kids have now, and life is plenty hard without an extra mortgage's worth of debt.  Of course, if dd's dead set on struggling through on her own, that's nice too.  The savings will continue to grow and be there for her when she figures out there's no great virtue in banging your head against the wall when you don't have to.

Speaking of which, I need to get back to work and knock off the chat board stuff for a while.  Thanks for taking time for the conversation, everyone.  It's been enlightening & valuable.

"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?"

Thanks for that, 4honor.  It makes sense to me.  I would approach it slightly differently, but I can see where this comes from.

I am in a somewhat similar situation; my x's disability and treatment can make him extremely erratic, and he doesn't realize when it's happening.  I know he means well, but basically I spend a lot of time catching shit that falls from the sky, and will likely do so as long as dd is under 18.  Is it fair?  No.  Is it the reality?  Yeah.  So I understand damage control (though it sounds like you're approaching it from the standpoint of justice; my take is a little more realist, I think).  My approach has been to control what I can, and insulate dd and myself from the rest as far as I can, recognizing that I won't be able to cover everything.  Some years ago I recognized that to some extent, I was simply screwed, and would have to accept that as a cost of business, so to speak.  I guess I see parallels here.  If my X were the CP, I would certainly strive to limit as far as possible the amount going through his hands, and try to set things up independently.  Not because he's a jerk -- he's not -- but because I know how he and money get along.  I think, though, that he'd probably go along with it far enough for that to work most of the time.  Which is not necessarily the case with all CPs.

The life-insurance thing I was referring to was a post --  on this board, maybe? -- where a guy was showing off his cleverness in referring his wife to Social Security's advertised payout in case of his death. An unwillingness to self-insure, basically.

The limited-income thing, though...look, I've been plenty poor, been through bad recessions in declining towns, places where 200 people show up the first day a minimum wage job is advertised.  (Remember _Roger & Me_?  I know that one.)  I also know what I've seen people with no education and limited English do for their kids.  Yes, they worked like g*ddamn demons.  12-, 16-hour days.  It's not brain surgery; it's volume, showing up, an eye for opportunity, two-bit marketing.  They lived like hell themselves, but made sure their kids were better off.  The kids went to college, had professional lives, said hello to the upper-middle class and are raising their kids there.  There's people doing that kind of thing via the internet now, which means you don't have to be in any particular place anymore.  If you're not sick or such a dreamer you trip over your own feet all the time, and you've got any kind of spark to you...man, there's a lot of money out there.  So, you know.  If what you're saying is that the NCP doesn't value providing all he can, fine.  But if you're saying it's not possible to do better...I think I buy that in a pretty limited number of cases.

:D gee, if the GOP still had a non-churchy wing, I guess I'd be joining.