Welcome to SPARC Forums. Please login or sign up.

Jun 17, 2024, 09:38:29 AM

Login with username, password and session length

WHY doesn't the CP have to show proof that the child support is being spend on the child?!?!

Started by caringstepmom, Nov 08, 2005, 09:32:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic


don't DESERVE to be called PARENTS. Period. Quite frankly, if someone is not working and helping to raise the child...they aren't parents.
Love me without fear-Need me without demanding-Trust me without question-Want me without restrictions-Accept me without change. Find my soul and I'm yours 4ever


the parents like those cp's don't deserve the title of PARENT. IMO, a parent will help to raise a child emotionally, physically and FINANCIALLY. If you aren't there in ONE of those ways, you dont' deserve the title of 'parent.'

Being a parent is not just donating an egg or sperm. There is a LOT more that goes into EARNING that HONOR.
Love me without fear-Need me without demanding-Trust me without question-Want me without restrictions-Accept me without change. Find my soul and I'm yours 4ever


I learned you can't always depend on it and it's just financially stupid to include money to get a higher mortgage that you may not be able to afford.

Stirling, I can see your point on the ncp having to have a two bedroom also. But as for it being a "wash" I don't necessarily think that would work. In this society, men generally make more money than women, and are more able to afford certain things. that is where ther eis the "income shares" model of support. So...if we go on that theory, we can "income share" the cost of the difference. For example: if a cp makes $2000 a month and the ncp makes $4000 a month, then according to the income shares model, the CP makes 33% of the monthly combined income...so the cp would be responsible for 33% of the child's care. Since the ncp makes DOUBLE the amount, he/she is to pay 66% of the expenses.

So if a one bedroom were $500 a month, and a 2 bedroom were $800 a month, wouldn't it be fair to say that the cp is responsible for 33% of the additional $300, and the ncp for the additional 66%?
Love me without fear-Need me without demanding-Trust me without question-Want me without restrictions-Accept me without change. Find my soul and I'm yours 4ever


I agree that the income shares model of determining CS is probably about the best system currently out there since it is based on the premise that both parents have a financial responsibility to support their children.  

I guess where I disagree is that CS should not be used to pay for things that the NCP has to provide for the children as well.  However I do see your point and on some level I could possibly agree with your position.  

To use your numbers it would cost each parent an addition $300 a month to provide a two bedroom apartment for their children.  I don't think that it would be fair for the NCP to pay his $300 and then be expected to pay $200 of the CP's increased rent based on the income ratio.  Perhaps both rents should be added together and then the income ratio applied.  So out of the combined $600 increased rent the NCP would pay $400 and the CP $200 based on the 1/3 to 2/3 ratio.

To be honest I think all of this is a moot point for me since I have come to realize that the CS guidelines are merely a suggestion of what should be spent in raising a child.  The CP will use their own parenting beliefs to decide what is actually spent in raising a child.  Also,  it maybe called CS but that label really doesn't accurately describe what it actually is.  Given the lack of accountability in the CS laws, all CS really is, is merely a redistribution of wealth from one parent to the other.  This is true since the CS becomes the CP's sole property that is unrestricted in how it is used.  The children don't even have a legal claim to the CS.  


I keep a detailed monthly list of everything.  Rent/utilities are divided by the # in household.  (Special case here, NCP has choosen too not be involved)  the child is a special medical needs child which just recently had open heart.....  So with all his meds, physical/mental needs - Yep! I include even the DVD rental divided by the # of individuals because the child watches it also.  Garage sales because you afford what you can when NCP doesn't always pay.
I even send mileage to and from medical trips divided out by %, and he is court ordered to reimburse his share, over and above CS.  Everytime he takes me to court to lower CS, the Judge laughs....

"... Do you include every cent given for the ice cream man, movies, school lunches, videos rented thru the week for the child?..."

  I do include some, but not all.  Because in our case I, CP, pay 68% and NCP only 33%.  So his share is minimal.  Child care, medical insurance is included in CS.  but any amount over $250 is split by percentages, and he was court ordered to repay that proportion on top of CS.  My living standards or my child's standards will not drop because the NCP chooses to not to work or send CS.  Yes, it does make me upset when he doesn't  help out or is there for our child but it brings laughter when I know for the next 19 yrs, he has to deal with it....


In an income shares state you would actually have to have an accounting for every penny spent on the child since the income shares model is premised on both parents supporting the children.

For example:  Lets assume the CS ratio is 1/3 for the CP and 2/3 for the NCP.  The guidelines indicate that it should cost $1800 a month to raise the child.  Therefore, the NCP pays 2/3 of this amount which is $1200.  The income shares model also indicates that the CP should pony up $600 of their own money to support thier child.

Accordingly, the CP should provide documentation that $1800 a month is spent on supporting their children.  If less is spent it means that the NCP is supporting their child more than 2/3rds which results in the NCP subsidizing the CP.


There are so many ways to look at all of this and not many feel as if they come out smelling like a rose.  DH's ex has had many jobs, many husbands, many live ins, many step kids...We didn't have to pay her less money if she moved in with someone that already had an extra bedroom, older step children and built in baby sitters.  No, we just keep on paying for her drugs and alcohol and the kids never had extra.  Well they probably had snacks a plenty but not much food on the table.  So no wonder we all feel as if we're getting the wrong end of the stick...we are!


  Don't you think that is a little extreme?  I am totally new here, but if my X wanted a reciept for every icecream cone or soda I bought for the children, then I would not have time for any thing else!!!  That is, if I actually received CS.  Now if we are talking $1000's per month,(which I am sure we're not) then that would be a different story.  
     Anyone who has ever had a child knows that they are very expensive.  And for anyone to actually say I WANT RECIEPTS is nuts!!


     I totally agree with you MafiaMom!!!  I personally think it is rediculous (sp) to try to justify every penny!!!!