What do you think of this letter?

[MYSONSDAD]

Many here would be more then willing to continue paying CS. What we want is equal access and equal say in decision making in our children's lives. That for me, is the bottom line.

I personally think that when the BM has the child, she pays, when the BF has the child, he pays. Both parents need to take responsibility, not putting all financial responsibilty on just one parent.

Many, not all,  CP's stay at home and collect. Not willing to work or keep the NCP involved in the child's life.

CS is nothing more then revenue for the State. Of course there are also many cases where one of the parents just don't care and walk away. But when you have a case where BOTH parents want equal, then this should be shared responsibilty right on down the line.

Another issue is the 'deadbeat'. This is targeted at NCP's who don't pay support. How about the CP's who deny access of the children to the NCP'S?

If it were me, I would just casually mention how glad you are that you BOTH can work together in being parents. Offer him a chance to express what he would like. More time with the children or more access to school events. Open the door for better communication.

So much conflict could be avoided if BOTH parents walked into court on Equal ground. Shared parenting from the start, until proven otherwise.

[cathy]

You statement:

"CS is nothing more then revenue for the State."

I don't understand.  Can you explain how you see this as true?  THANKS!

[MYSONSDAD]

States receive a percentage on CS collected.

"Children learn what they live"

[cathy]

I don't know of this happening in NC.  My husband has been on the paying end and now on the receiving end.   The state doesn't get anything - in fact, it costs them to enforce and administer the collection/distribution of the child support.

[joni]

State agencies received "matching" funds from the Feds for all of the child support that they process.

[cathy]

Yes - but aren't the "matching funds" an amount to cover the expense involved in the collection process?  I wouldn't think the state was making a profit from this.

And for that matter, my husband paid directly to his ex for years.  Actually a rather funny story I think.  He would log on and transfer the money directly to her account that he had set up where he banked.  He had "deposit-only" access - couldn't even check the balance.  So EVERY month on the FIRST of the month, regardless of what day of the week it was - she had the cash in hand.

Well - somehow she got it in her head that that way was "controlling".  She went to court and asked that it be done thru the court system.  No big deal as far as my husband was concerned.  It was a little less convenient because we had to write a check and mail it in - but whoopie.

Ok - so we mailed the payment in by the first of the month.  It had to go thru the mail system, reach the child support agency, be posted, a check cut to her and mailed to her.  Needless to say, she didn't have the money in hand on the first.  At the best, she had a check around the 15th of the month!

So she called and complained and wanted my husband to go back to paying her directly!  They went to court and the judge looked at my husband and said "And why would you want to do this?  You would have no record and would have to be VERY careful".  So, in the end, it was left as it was - being paid thru the court.

[POC]

Obviously you are unaware that former CA Governor, Gray Davis' justification for vetoing paternity fraud legislation was that CA would lose $40 Million per year in federal welfare money. Sadly, he was correct in his calculations. That's right, he was justifying fraudulent CS orders, so that CA could bilk the federal government out of more welfare money. The more each and every state (including NC) collects in CS, the more they get in welfare money. Whether those orders are fraudulent or equitable has no bearing on the percentage.

The millions in grants you speak of to states is separate and apart from welfare money that is tied to how much the state collects in CS.

[POC]

Since you asked, my formula is as follows:

1.   Use USDA data on the costs of raising children, except marginal (not per capita) housing costs, and base the level on the parents' average income, not their combined income. Basic Child Costs Per Month (In this example, we will assume that amount is $1,000)
2.   Determine which costs are fixed and which are variable costs. Regardless of how much time a child spends with their parent, fixed costs do not decrease. Examples are rent/mortgage, bed, dresser, car seat. Variable costs increase in or decrease depending on how much time a child spends with each parent. Based on USDA data percentages are derived for both fixed and variable costs. For arguments sake, we will assume that fixed costs are 30% and variable costs are 70%. (Fixed costs $300, variable costs $700)
3.   Prorate NRP's fixed costs by multiplying percentage of time with the NRP by two. For example, if the child spends 40% of his/her time with the NRP, then the prorated portion of fixed costs would be 80% of what ever the fixed costs are. Therefore, the prorated portion of fixed costs would be 24% (.30 x .80). Or, $1,000 x .24 = $240
4.   Multiply amount in line 1 by percentage in line 3 and add that amount to the amount in line 1 to arrive at the total amount needed to provide for the child. In this example it would be the amount in line 1 x 1.24. ($1,000 x 1.24 = $1,240).This equitably accounts for the reality that it costs more to provide for the child at one home than it does at two homes. But, at the same time, it accounts for the fact that the child benefits from the fixed items at the primary home for longer periods of time than he/she is able to at the NRP home. Child support monies are proportioned accordingly.
5.   NRP's total costs are percentage of time at NRP's home multiplied by (variable costs) in line 2, plus prorated portion in line 3 multiplied by line 1. In this example, ($700 x .40 + $1,000 x .24) = $280 + $240 = $520 (NRP's Basic Costs)
6.   Primary Parent's (PP) total costs are percentage of time at the PP home multiplied by (variable costs) in line 2, plus the full 30% of fixed costs of line 1. In this example, ($700 x .60 + $1,000 x .30) = $420 + $300 = $720 (PP Basic Costs)
7.   *    Combining the final figures of lines 5 and 6 totals up to the total amount of basic needs for the child, as described in line 4.
8.   Add actual payments made by NRP for medical and child care to line 5. (NRP's Total Costs)
9.   Add actual payments made by PP for medical and child care to line 6. (PP's Total Costs)
10.   Subtract what ever tax benefits (income tax deduction, child tax credit or deduction for day care) the NRP receives (annual benefit of deductions /12) from line 5. NRP's Net Costs
11.   Subtract what ever tax benefits (income tax deduction, child tax credit or deduction for day care) the PP receives (annual benefit of deductions /12) from line 6. PP's Net Costs
12.   Calculate NRP's net monthly income, minus a self-support reserve of ($982 poverty level income) for amount of available income to support the child.
13.   Calculate PP's net monthly income, minus a self-support reserve of ($982 poverty level income) for amount of available income to support the child.
14.   Divide figure in line 12 by line 12 plus line 13 to arrive at NRP's available income percentage.
15.   Divide figure in line 13 by line 12 plus line 13 to arrive at PP's available income percentage.
16.   Multiply line 14 by line 11 to arrive at NRP's share of PP's Costs.
17.   Multiply line 15 by line 10 to arrive at PP's share of NRP's Costs.
18.   If line 16 is greater than line 17, then the difference is the presumptive child support award that the NRP would pay to the PP. If line 17 is greater than line 16, then the difference is the presumptive child support award that the PP would pay to the NRP.


Any mathematical formula worth its salt can be tested for validity at any point of the spectrum for validity. The above formula seamlessly proportions an equitable amount of money for children's reasonable needs (as defined by the USDA) across the time sharing and income distributions that are reality in today's society. In situations where stay-at-home-moms earned no income before and after a divorce, the father would still provide for 100% of the financial needs of the child. In situations where there is equal parental incomes and 50/50 time sharing, there would be no child support award, except to equitably account for actual differences of one parent paying more for day care and medical than the other, or because of tax benefit implications. When a child spends 100% of his/her time at one household and none at the other, all of the money to support the child is proportioned to provide for the child's needs at said home. All of this is accomplished with the same mathematical formula. The sheer presence of a deviation formula is an admission of a flawed basic child support guideline formula. Children deserve not to have the money that is intended to meet their needs so misproportioned. Every step in my formula more equitably provides for the needs of children than do current guidelines.

[cathy]

I wasn't speaking of grant money.  And you are right - I do not live in California and do not follow what happens there.   I am speaking about NC - the state I live in.

[cathy]

Have a tad of a headache, so may not have caught everything - - -but here are a few questions that hit me right off the top of my head....

How do you guard against someone making themselves "cash poor" to avoid their fair share of child support?  Fix cost - - -ok I got buy myself a big ass house, pour all my savings/investment money/etc into.  Now instead of a tax shelter, I have a "child support" shelter.

How do you calculate "NET PAY"?  I can manipulate my NET very easily.  How about pre-tax dollars for 401K plans, stock purchase, etc?  Do you add that back in and tax it as at the prevailing rate?  What if it changes the tax bracket?  If I claim 5 dependents, the taxes withheld is much different than if I claim no dependents.

Also - as you state....If one parent (hey, maybe it was dad rather than mom) stayed home with the kids and had no income, you think it is fair to place the financial burden completely on the other parent?  If they are divorced, obviously this "stay at home parent" is going to have to have income from somewhere for the "fixed" costs.  Why would they get a free ride?

I also disagree with your assertion that the presence of a deviation formulat is an admission of a flawed basic child support guideline formula.  What is is an admission of it that the whole concept of child support is very complex and every situation is vastly different - so it impossible to have a "one size fits all" approach.  The best one can do is a "one size fits most", and provide some mechanism for dealing with the extremes.