want all answers possible

[POC]

Although the practical nature of current child support systems is that it isn't, child support should be thought of as the child's money. It should cover the child's reasonable needs, nothing more, nothing less. Simplistically, if the child spends 32 days per year at the NCP home, then 32/365 of the total amount of CS for the year should be apportioned to the NCP home. The remaining 333/365 of that amount should be apportioned to the CP home. If the child spends 120 days at the NCP home, then 120/365 should be apportioned to the NCP home, and 245/365 to the CP home, and so on and so forth for any given time sharing arrangement.

If the child were to go on a 3 week summer camp, parents wouldn't just pay for two of the weeks, because that is where the child will primarily be. They wouldn't come up a coniving scheme to give some type of "credit" for that remaining week either. They would set a total budget for what is reasonable, and pay each summer camp provider for the costs at their particular camp.  So, why would you only provide money to primary homes when the child is there a total of 8 months out of the year, what about the other 4 months?

Answer: Because child support is not for children. More importance has been given to parental designations than for children's needs.

[reagantrooper]

I think a good deal of the problems with todays Child support industry could be resolved if we would simply switch from a income based formula to a true expence based formula.

This would provide accountabilty for what is now just FREE monies for the CP to do whatever the hell they want with. I think it would be much easier than folks think.

I mean its not rocket science to "see" where my hard earned money goes. IE: Some $350 is TAKEN from each and EVERY paycheck I get. This money is sent to my X and her household. Her household consist of her, her BF, my Daughter and her 2 "other" kids. So my Daughter makes up %20 of that house hold (3 months+-/year or so she is at my house so she is %20 of that household for only about 9 months a year). My Xs household income from the 2 adults is $1400/mo when you add the $700/mo from me their HHs total income is $2100/mo. So the money that is taken from me and given to her makes up %33 of their total household income.

So my Daughter makes up only %20 of that HH for only 9 months out of the year yet I am providing %33 of that HHs income 12 months out of the year!

So its obvious to see that I am not only finacialy supporting my Daughter %100 I am supporting my X, her BF and her other kids.

Futhermore I get to pay the taxes on the money that is taken from me and given to her. I only get the tax deduction every other year for my Girl. Hell based on these numbers I should not only get the deduction for my Girl every year I should also get the deductions for her 2 kids.

Based on the above numbers tell me how I am wrong?

[cinb85]

I misunderstood what you meant about the parents not working three jobs.  I didn't like working three jobs.  It took time away from my daughter and I (luckily my best friend lived next door, so she took care of her while I worked and my daughter was very comfortable with her and her son).  But, I couldn't afford the rent without working extra jobs.  Luckily, due to my hard work and lots of schooling, I've gotten several promotions and things are looking up!

My ex has nothing that they can put a lien on and he has no driver's license.  He has lived off other women since we broke up 14 years ago.
So....there's not much they can do to him except for arrest him every once in awhile.  And he knows that!

The last time that I was at court for an enforcement hearing, there were several of us out in the waiting room.  We all got talking and all of our stories were completely different.  There was a guy there who was paying faithfully every week. Unfortunately it wasn't the total amount because he didn't make enough to pay the total amount.  But it was a decent amount that he was paying every week.  He told me that the police are constantly arresting him for failure to pay CS.  He said that his ex was calling him constantly and calling him a bad father.  My ex never pays CS until he hears that there's a warrant out for his arrest, then he "might" pay $10 or $25 and the CS office will revoke the warrant.  He knows that they will do this, so he knows how to play the game.

There's was a woman there who's ex wanted the support lowered to $25/week for two children.  She was working, but due to the high cost of daycare, money was tight for her.  She was actually crying in the waiting room because she didn't know how she was going to pay her rent for that month.  I felt so bad for her, because I knew exactly what she was going through.  When my ex left, he left with all of the bill money. I was frantic!  Didn't know how I was going to pay my bills.  Luckily I was able to find some help, but it wasn't easy.

Then there was a guy who wanted custody of his daughter because his ex was very unstable (did drugs and drinks).  His ex just gave birth to another baby and was living with an abusive man (the father of the baby).  Of course, his ex wouldn't give him custody, so he was there to fight for his daughter.  

It was a very interesting day.  We could all understand each other's situations and could sympathize.  We even joked that we should do a talk show like this where we could talk about our situations so the world (and the courts) could see all sides of the stories and how they affect the children.

You're right.  Many good things came out of this.  I have a beautiful daughter who is the love of my life!  She's a good girl, very loving and has a bright future ahead of her!

Good luck to you and thanks for your opinions.

[Stirling]

CS is merely a redistribution of wealth from one parent to the other.

This is true since the parent receiving the CS is under no legal requirements to either spend the CS on the child, or account for how it is actually spent.  In addition, the CS becomes the sole property of the person receiving it, and can do with it as they wish.  The children don't even have a legal claim to the CS.

[cinb85]

I am a CP, and if I were to receive CS, I would have NO problem accounting for it each week.

In theory making the CP accountable for the CS is a good idea, but it will never work.  Those CPs who DON'T spend the CS on the children are people with no common decency and with no morals.  These kind of people are very good at getting away with things and will have NO problem making something up to show accountability.

If my ex were to ask me today to account for the little CS that he has paid so far this year, I would do it in a hearbeat, because I KNOW that the CS has been spent totally on our daughter!

[Stirling]

"Why not collect CS from both the CP and NCP?"

This is an idea that I have had for a few years.  I would love to see a CS escrow type account set up where both parents pay into and both parents can withdraw from.  It would certainly support the ideal that both parents support their children.  There would probably need to be regulations which provide what child related expenses can be paid from the escrow account, and how the amount to be paid from the account is calculated.

[alh]

Wow, what a statement.  So, I am just curious how much you think is appropriate for an NCP to pay?  My husband was just ordered to pay 468$ a month for 2 kids, he made 15,000$ last year.

Maintaining the status of the household pre seperation is an outrageous idea for the government to impinge .  Divorce or a kid's parents splitting is going to cause big changes financially and emotionally.  That statement says money is more important to raising children than love and I have to say I disagree.  The high amounts of child support these NCP's are being forced to pay hinder them from providing the necessities for life, let alone providing a home for themselves to spend with their children and maintain a pre seperation situation.  

Beyond stripping these men and women of their dignity and shredding any will for them to move forward in life these people are stripped of any parental say so.  Their children come to know them as banks and/or totally miss the fact that their NCP is the one who really pays for their needs.  As a parent I should be able to say- No, you can't play that 3d sport or buy another new outfit because I don't have the money this week.  What does that teach kids? To be BRATS! Kids learn at an early age how all this works I've watched my sisters grow up in this situation and I am watching it happen in my step children.  Kids have to be taught that they can't have everything they want.  Even if you could do and buy everything your child wants would you?  That will teach them nothing.  I want our kids to learn the value of hardwork, dedication, and patience and appreciation for the blessings they do have.

What is child support supposed to pay for-the ex's new found singledom? It should not be considered for rent or utilities...both parents have to provide their own living arrangements, they would have to do so even if kids weren't involved.  A house has to be heated and the difference of the amount of electricity is neglible-if you allow your kids to watch that much TV to make your bill go up that is your own ignorance.  That said the NCP should help with clothing, groceries, medical expenses, lunch money, school supplies/fees, some child care-these are the necessities.  Leisure and extracurriculars should not be factored into this amount-the NCP should be able to use discretion and share in the joy of TREATING their own child.  Fun activities and that were rewards for helping out at home, doing well in school, and just to spend time and share with a parent-not requirements.  

I don't think my husband should have to work overtime just to pay his kids' mom more money.  With all that I listed I can not come up with where it takes 468$ a month to raise to kids.  MY mom raised 4 of us and I guarantee it did not take her an extra amount that large each month to properly provide for us 4.  We had everything we needed and some extras too.  A parent CP or NCP should not have to work two jobs so their kid can be in 4 different activites.   Why do the ncp's lose any discretion to spending their money on their kids?  

And the NCP is supposed to be sharing support-so exactly what is CP paying-stuff they'd have to pay for anyways.  So the government thinks it takes how much to raise a child?  It sounds to me a child from a divorced situation is making out financially like a bandit.
REMEMBER THIS IS NOT ALIMONY!

And you claim a NCP's other kids should not be factored into the picture?  Because in a sense it sounds like you think the NCP should be punished.  How many people consider whether or not to have kids based on money? If that was the case most of us would never have them-especially if they really cost 600$ a month!!  A man or woman deserves to move on after a divorce.  Do you really think that YOU should have that much control over your ex's life?

Do I think there aren't dead beat dad's out there? I know there are my father is one of them.  BUT-I think many dad's are forced to disappear b/c they can't pay their child support.

The sad part is these children being used as ammunition.  They are talked about like they are huge burdens.

"A child is entitled to be supported by both parents" To be a supportive parent you have to be able to support yourself and be on stable ground.  Why is such an excessive financial burden placed on one parent.

I have seen both sides of this and how it turns out. It is not in the best interest of the kids for things to be this unfair.

[leon clugston]

What people dont understand, is after you divorce assuming you were married there is no contractual obligation to either, (the term contract, is derived from the marriage license, a gratuity created by the state giving you benefits) the child support end is a goverment created gratuity, hencforth makeing all obligees third party beneficiuarys, and makeing the obligor(a debtor) created by law, or more correctly legislated. The common law of the United States of America, abolished in most sense, had the solution that parents were responsible for the welfare and upbringing of there child,it was held as the standard of life not open to interpretation, however under it the states could not create the obligation for it already existed, therefor barring them from there collections to create more revenue for the administrative state. The social Security number and the marriage license is what put the citizens into a different class of standing, creating the stance as a third party beneficiuary.
The creation of welfare has attributed nothing to the better for the people, all it did was create more revenue for which the states could lay claim to, and lay the foundation for total socialism in the form of goverment creation, outside the protections of the constitution. The idea of a better society, with fairness is thoughtfull at best, but when confronted w/ entities w/ a pecurinary enterest in every aspect of it, states dependnat upon monies from collections for more revenue, and laws open to interpretation from different peoples, dependant upon there standing in receival there is no equalization or contribution to better the standings of the children, nor can there be. The creation of the welfare stands as nothing more than a BILL OF ATTAINDER, you either except it , or you are legislatively punished, and if you do except it you are bound to within the determinations set forth in it, or you are legislatively punished.
The gratest propaganda ever created was it was for the better of society, especialy children.

[blueskies]

Here is the way I think it is looked at with the first kids' support coming first:

Someone put it to me this way one time, and it made sense.

If you bought a car and were paying the lender a certain amount per month for the car, then you went and bought a second car, do you think the lender for the first car is going to allow you to reduce the monthly payment for it so you can afford to also make payments for the second car? If you are acquiring the second car, it is assumed that you can afford both of them.

The same with having children...if you are having another one, it should be assumed that you can afford both the ones you already have (without reducing support to them) plus the subsequent ones.

[oklahoma]

As has been previously stated, when parents decide to have more children or switch to a lower paying job, an intact family adjusts to it.  But in the case of divorce, the whole family cannot adjust to it.  You may think NCP cannot afford another child, but perhaps he/she thinks it is possible with a little adjustment and is willing to make that adjustment for the rewards of parenthood.  But the way the system is set up, the state is trying to tell NCPs they cannot have another child, cannot make the adjustments that another family would have the choice to make.

Then there are more dramatic instances--my husband was injured on the job, temporarily paralyzed, not allowed to work for 8 months, and then only with limitations.  When this happened, he went to school.  But CS said that he had no reasons to go to school and imputed his previous income to calculate CS.  Our family has struggled with a seriously reduced income, while CP got the same old check every month.  Funny how her attorneys fees last time she took us to court almost exactly matched the amount we paid to CS in a year.  And you can bet that when my husband is an attorney, CP and CSD will be right in line to adjust CS amount--no arguments about changing the first children's standard of living there.