US Court of Appeals rule that custodial parents must account for C/S

[MYSONSDAD]

And I could not agree less with your post. A person will have rent/ house payment, utilities and the need to buy groceries whether they have a child/children or not. I can see allowing about 10% per child, but that should be it. Same heating cost  would warm all bodies, same with air conditioning, how much can a child consume in food, would they make numerous long distance calls and electric too should not be more then 10%, unless they stay up all night ironing clothes. Car insurance is stretching it, they don't drive and usually everyone has a car, child or not.

But it's okay because now the NCP gets to pay for two homes, when it had been one. They must be making better cardboard boxes these days.

And did I forget the CP usually get the tax credits.

Sounds a little like double dipping....

[jilly]

Thank you so much for posting the entire case!  I posted the link to the case but apparently you're the only one that actually looked it up.

U.S. v. Lewko is NOT a case in which the Court of Appeals made a RULING that CPs have to provide an accounting of how they spend child support.  If you read the case in it's entirety, it's a case about a man who was a true deadbeat. He thought he didn't have to pay child support if he didn't get custody of his children. He then VOLUNTARILY quit his job and cried poor.

Here's the quote (with preceeding information) the Justices made in this Opinion:

"At oral argument, Lewko acknowledged not only that a child support payment is a "thing," but also that this thing must cross state lines in order to satisfy the court order. First, he argues that a child support payment is a wholly different type of "thing" because it emanates from family law. Specifically, defendant asserts that a child support order is unique because it is a unilateral, rather than a reciprocal, obligation. This characterization, however, is not entirely accurate. Although the non-custodial parent has a duty to provide financial support, the custodial parent must also demonstrate that he or she is using that money for the care and upbringing of the child. Regardless, a child support obligation arising from a court order, whether family court or another civil court, is a debt that may be enforced through civil remedies. Therefore, defendant's attempt to carve out child support payments from other types of interstate monetary transfers in satisfaction of a financial obligation fails."

The statement that "...the custodial parent must demonstrate that he or she is using that money for the care and upbringing of the child" is most likely that particular Justices' PERSONAL opinion.  However, this does not make it law.  It's only a comment stated in an opinion.

[StPaulieGirl]

I've been reading all the posts trying to find anything about what to keep, and how to document where the money goes.

From what I read so far, these cases don't seem to have anything to do with a CP coming up with expense ledgers.  I'm not going to take any chances, though.  Starting in January, I have already resolved to force myself to document everything, so this will just be something extra to do.  Blecccch.....more paperwork.

Lol, I just realized that my alimony and their child support is lumped together.  Oh well, I'll figure it out.

[joni]

child support + alimony = adult support

[small](this is not true case for all cases, I know there's BM's on this board who get little or nothing in CS...just speaking from my own experience with my DH's PBFH who used last month's child support to buy herself a diamond ring.....Merry Christmas to her and God Bless us everyone!)[/small]