want all answers possible

[leon clugston]

this is a simple question to test if people realy do have a clue to what is going on and how it happened.This question is not meant to insult or to mislead, it is meant to gather knowledge of what people think is true to better my postings in hopes of helping people. What do you think child support realy is?, and do you know what it is realy meant for.??and how do you think they have managed to circumnavigate the authority of the courts allowing AGENCY's to lein, levy and take property against youre constitutional secured rights.? Just want thoughts and beliefs, or facts if you think you can answer.

[ocean]

Child support is suppose to help the household that the child lives in so that when one parent leaves the household is able to function as much as possible.
It is suppose to help with all household expenses...mortgage/food/clothing and whatever else a child uses throughout the day. In my state, daycare and healthcare are seperate and added on. I agree with this also as the percentage of child support would not cover childcare and it is an expense  changes from year to year. Healthcare here is whichever parent has it through there job for the cheapest price wins ..LOL Then the co-pays are at a percentage of the salaries of the parents.

In my state it is only based on NCP's income which I think is wrong. I think it should be BOTH parents and not just a percentage of one. I have heard that some states give a reduction to parents that have more kids afterwards with a second family. I do not think that is fair to child #1. The parent knew their obligation to child #1 and then should decide if they could have more children. Child #1 should not lose money because parent has a second family. I think if you can support your first child/ren and then can afford to have more go right ahead!

Recently, I saw a state that has a sliding scale according to the child's age. That was very interesting to me. We do not have that here yet...

There are many deadbeat mothers and fathers out there and there has to be an agency in charge. As far as I know, in my state, the state runs this service. I think it is fair to take tax money, bank accounts, and liens because it is the parent's responsibility to take care of your child. The children are the ones that are hurt while the dead-beat parent is not paying. A child is entitled to be supported by both parents.

This is just what I have seen...

[cinb85]

Finally someone who understands how I feel about states giving a reduction to parents that have more kids afterwards with a second family.  My ex KEEPS fathering more and more children (now keep in mind, he doesn't support ANY of these children), yet when we go to court, he keeps getting reductions for ALL of these children even though he doesn't support them.  Our daughter is the #1 child.  I don't want ANY of his children to suffer and be neglected, but I don't think that it's fair that our daughter has to suffer everytime he fathers another child!

In our state, they do grant a reduction if the NCP spends at least 50% of their time with the children.  I DO agree with that and it SHOULD encourage the NCP to spend as much time with the children as possible.  Unfortunately, it didn't work where my ex is concerned.  He's just a TRUE deadbeat!

Our state also decided the CS by looking at BOTH incomes (NCPs and CPs).  Now, normally I would agree with this, but since my ex chooses to not work and live off women, I really don't think that it's fair.  Since I have a decent job (I've worked at the same job for over 25 years), I have to pay a much larger portion.  I also have to have medical insurance on our daughter which raises my portion quite a bit (the money is taken out of my paycheck).  I also have to pay the first $250 of unreimbursable medical, then he only has to pay 27 percent of the rest (which he doesn't).

All of these laws would work if you were talking about TWO parents who want to do what's best for the children, but unfortunately there are too many mothers and fathers out there who don't want to do what's right where their children are concerned.

[reagantrooper]

Child support in its present form is nothing more than a wealth redistrbution program. Its a money making sceam for the states and the people who recieve the FREE money each and every month without ever having to ACCOUNT for one red penny of how said monies are spent.

Furthermore it is a system of  involentary servitude to those who the money is stolen from.

What else would you call a system that takes earned monies from one adult and gives it to another adult without any accountability WHATSO EVER? Even the Goverment makes people who are the payees for a minor childs social security, acount for said monies on a yearly basis.

What else would you call a system that takes earned monies from an adult and the entity that is taking said monies gets a reward for taking this money?

What else would you call a system that FORCES an adult to work at a certain level of pay? The argument that the system does not make one work at a certain level of pay, rather just pay at a certain level is a bogus one. IE: If 2 two Parents are together raising a Child and Dad changes jobs for a lower paying job but a job that he like more the Family will adjust. It does not work this way if the two Parents are apart. Yet another example of how CS is involentary servitude.

The idea of  "Our daughter is the #1 child. I don't want ANY of his children to suffer and be neglected, but I don't think that it's fair that our daughter has to suffer everytime he fathers another child!" just blows my mind! What! Dad cant have any more Kids? If the two parents where still together would not the Family adjust to having more people. If a CP has more kids would't they have to adjust the way they spend thier funds? I for one dont think that having more siblings should be looked at as suffering.

If the system of child support was truly about providing finacial support for children and children alone, then there would be a system of check and balences in place so the Adults who get the checks would be held accountable for said monies and would face consequences for not spending the money to support the Children.  

[ilovemysd]

Now though, you have a problem where you are intentionally punishing good dads for the sins of the deadbeats, and that's not fair or just either.

[davisjames]

How ridiculous is that.  What if you decide you want more children?  Are you going to be upset when the FOC raises the CS you receive because your income is adjusted for your second family?  CERTAINLY NOT!!  My husband is a bio-father of 2 and one on the way, step-father to 1 whose dad is MIA (for lack of better way to put it) and treats all of his children the same.  How would you feel if your dad treated your older sister better than you and spent more money on her?  They are all his biological children! What's the difference.  Sounds to me like you should stay out his business.
 

[cinb85]

Of course, Dad can have more kids (as long as he's willing to support them)!!!!

My ex has fathered 7 children.  He takes care of NONE of them!!!!

As far as accountability.  If I WERE to get the court-ordered CS, I would GLADLY show an accounting each month to my ex and the courts!

I understand the the system is unfair to MANY fathers (those fathers who truly want what's best for all of their children, but my ex is unfortunately not one of those fathers!  

[cinb85]

It wouldn't bother me as much that my ex gets a reduction of CS for our daughter if he were TRULY taking care of his children, but he doesn't.  He has 7 children and he doesn't take care of any of them!

I KNOW that there are many good dads out there who end up getting screwed by the CPs who are money-hungry!  I have seem it first hand!
I'm just saying that it's not fair that my ex gets our daughter's CS lowered everytime that he fathers another child (especially since he isn't taking care of those other children).  

[Sherry1]

Both parents should contribute financially to the support of the child.  BM didn't work for over 10 years and the kids walked around in rags and didn't have anything.  BM considered CS her income.

[cinb85]

Yes, both parents should contribute financially to the support of the child.
My ex has worked VERY little over the 14 years that our daughter has been on this earth.  Even when he does work, he doesn't pay the CS until they start to garnish his wages, then he ends up quitting his job (or getting fired for not showing up).

I've worked the same job for over 25 years and have worked VERY hard to get promoted to where I make a decent amount now (but it wasn't easy while raising our daughter totally by myself).  I just wish that my ex would get a job and pay "something" each week.  Our daughter deserves his support!