Insanity of CS calculations

[cathy]

Using the CS calculator on the NC CSE website, the following is possible:

CP of 2 kids with salary    $10,000/month
NCP with salary               $1400/month
NCP CS: $397.00

Now let's give the NCP a raise of $100/month:

CP of 2 kids with salary                               $10,000/month
NCP with another biological child with salary    $1500/month
NCP CS: $200.48

Did you catch that?  NCP's salary went UP, the amount of CS went DOWN!!  

That is due to this rather insane, but I'm sure well intended, provision for low-income parents.  Basically, if the NCP's salary falls below a minimum amount, only the NCP's salary is used for calculating the CS.

Of course, after they go above that minimum level, the standard "combine the income to determine the overall CS" goes into effect.  Then the percentage of the overall salary respresented by the NCP is much smaller and results in a much smaller CS amount.

How crazy is that?!?!?! And how can it be right that an NCP is expected to pay almost $400 in CS when they only make $1400??  And that $400 is going to a parent that makes $10,000?  

[ocean]

Hi,
 I guess since the CP has another child the CS goes down. We had a debate on the other board over this and I was in the minority. I really think that once a person divorce occurs and CS set that should be it. Having another child AFTER if that parents choice and should not affect the CP at all.

[cathy]

In these examples, I didn't put in any additional children for either NCP or CP.

In my real life situation, my husband is the custodial parent and does not have additional children.  The PBFH is the NCP and has an additional child and she does get credit and that lowers the amount of child support.

And yes - I agree with you. I think additional kids should not be considered.  It is a choice the parent makes, knowing the obligation they already have to existing kids.  Knowing that obligation, if they can afford and want more kids, so be it.  

(Just an odd twist here on my personal situation - - In this state, you have to be separated for a year before your divorce is final.  PBFH was 8 months pregnant when that year was over.  My husband delayed the divorce so that she could be covered under his insurance, since even if they divorced and she remarried - it would have been an existing condition and not covered under her new husband's insurance!  Technically, from a legal standpoint, this child would be considered to be my husband's child until paternity was contested!)

[ocean]

You have a VERY generous husband because there is not way that I would have allowed that to happen! LOL

[cathy]

When we were dating and he told me this, I knew he was either the most generous person in the world......or the dumbest!  I'm still now sure which!

But I can tell you, he wouldn't spit on her if she were on fire now.

[4honor]

There is no reason a child living with a parent who makes $10K a month needs any CS from the NCP. The NCP should be using the CS to improve the kids' lives while they are with the NCP... or placing the money in a medical account for the actual use of the children. (not that I think your DH is after the NCP's money or anything.)

And a CS order should never place any NCP under the state need amount for one person at poverty level. However, for the amount to calculate LOWER at a higher salary is ludicrous.

AND I disagree with you both about subsequent children... because between the calculation of being able to afford another child and the present... LIFE HAPPENS and the next child is already there. So you are saying that when life happens and NCP loses a job, the subsequent child(ren) should starve so that previous children don't have to be affected? rather than EVERYONE in the family sucking in their belt and EVERYONE making it through? The "you should have thought about that before you brought another child into the world" mentality is all fine and dandy in theory, but we don't live in theory, we live in reality... and every child should be EQUALLY provided for. I do not condone a reduction "just because" an NCP has another child, but if there is financial calamity, downward modification should be easier to get.  Enough of that -- getting down off my soap box.

Back to the original, be glad you aren't in WA. in WA, the CP would be paying the NCP a small amount to help when the children are in their care those 4+ days a month for visitation. (Would be about $150).

[cathy]

And why do you think there is reason for a parent not to financially support their child?  Why should the amount one parent makes relieve the other parent from having to provide financially for their children?

In our case, my husband actually makes more than $10,000/month.  And no we don't need child support. The biggest reason we even filed for child support is that the NCP allowed her husband to molest these kids, didn't believe the kids (and thus allowed it to continue for 18 more months until they finally told us), and is STILL married to the sorry SOB.  AND she then filed motions against us for contempt because we didn't force the girls to visit her.  If she can afford to do that, she can afford to pay child support.

And for subsequent children - I'm sorry, but they don't "just happen"!   If you can't afford another child, don't have one.  Sure life happens, jobs can be lost - - but that is a different situation.  I'm not sure how you see that when an NCP loses a job, the "new" kids starve and the  "old" ones don't?  If the NCP loses their job, they have NO income so neither the old kids or new kids are being supported by the NCP.  The only reason the "old" kids wouldn't suffer is because their other parent supports them.  And the "new" kids have another parent as well!

And so far as every kid being equally provided for - that is not reality!  Children are not provided for equally - even if they share a parent.  In the example given with the CP makes $10,000 a month and the NCP making $1600 -- - do you think any "new" kids the NCP elect to have are provided for equally to the kids that are with the CP?  Of course not!

And it goes both ways - - if the CP has additional kids, their income is reduced as well in the CS calculator so the NCP pays MORE.  Is that right?  Because the CP elected to have more kids, the NCP has to pay MORE??  So you have a person that has to pay more money for the decision their ex makes in regards to having more kids - something they have absolutely no say in!

Insanity - total insanity.

[4honor]

You appear to be advocating that NCPs are not entitled to sex (cause sex causes additional children). And since most NCPs are male, that men are not entitled to sex or additional children following the break down in a previous relationship if a court has ordered them to pay support.

You ask if I think an NCP should be paying more for a CP's subsequent children. You and I are not talking about the same thing. CS is for the kids. If the CP has additional children, then the amount of $ they spend directly on the older children is reallocated --- it goes down without affecting what the NCP spends. IF the NCP has additional children, the amount the NCP spends on the older children should also go down without affecting what the CP spends.

I am advocating that a child grow up believing that FAMILY is important - whether half sibling or full sibling -- and that we make sacrifices for family. Rather than teach them to grow up thinking that custody is all about the money and not about the relationship.

I am more than a little perturbed that DH has to pay 3-4 more years for a kid that is failing high school... a kid that raped my children for almost 2 years cause his mother told him to make our lives a living hell, and it didn't matter how, cause his little brothers weren't REAL anyway... that fighting to change the order would cost more than we would pay between now and the end of it... that BM's favorite thing to say when DH can't pay for whatever "extra" she has cooked up this week is... "well if you couldn't afford the other kids you shouldn't have had them." Thing is, when I was working, I made more than DH. I was laid off because I couldn't do my job -- I now suffer from chronic debilitating migraines. I spend 6 out of 7 days a week with them, most bad enough I cannot see. DH didn't know that when we married and had our kids... nor did I. So now that they are here, the larger chunk of change should go to the rapist with the CS order instead of to pay for the food, clothing, and therapy the younger kids need?

I would hate to live in your little BLACK and WHITE world.

[cathy]

First, I wasn't jumping on ANYONE - I was stating my opinion.

And please point out where I said NCPs are not entitled to sex - how utterly ridiculous.  But surely you are aware that there are methods and ways of having sex and NOT becoming pregnant?  I personally have been having sex for almost 25 years and have never been pregnant.  (And trust me, when my husband was an NCP, we still had sex)

And I also never said that NCPs (or CPs) should not have children - I simply said they shouldn't if they can't afford them.  It shouldn't affect their existing obligation.   Are you sure that you are actually reading what I posted??

Again - we are talking the same thing - CS.  Using the calculator to determine CS (at least in this state), additional children FOR BOTH CPs AND NCPs are taken into account.  That means that if the CP has additional children, their income is adjusted (downward) and the amount of child support they are responsible for is reduced - and thus, the amount of money the NCP has to pay is INCREASED!  What the CP does with their money is their business - I was only commenting on the affect on the amount of CS paid.

Now - so far as my little "BLACK and WHITE" world -- you have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about.  I have LOTS of responses for you on that comment, but I will just keep them to myself.

And your little sidetrip on FAMILY is nice - but totally unrelated to the discussion.   The discussion was CS.

[lucky]

Let it go, 4honor.  Don't stress yourself out about this right now.

[em]Lucky

Lead your life so you wouldn't be ashamed to sell the family parrot to the town gossip.
- Will Rogers[em]