Insanity of CS calculations

[Genie]

the NCP in this case is VOLUNTARILY not working a job to her earning potential and VOLUNTARILY not working a full week and making what she can to support herself and her children.  This NCP has been doing everything possible to get out of paying any CS at all.

Cathy briefly described the situation to another poster above but if you new the facts you would know that the NCP does not see the children at all and the other child is very close to be an adult if not already.

This is not about having more children and them being equally taken care. We have had that conversation on this board already.  And putting the money in an account for them or their medical bills is not possible in this case.  

There is no financial calamity in this situation, it is the NCP willingly putting herself in this financial situation in order to not pay for her children.

[4honor]

SO I answered her post based on the information she gave.

She stated that it was ridiculous that an increase in wages made for a decrease in CS. I agreed that was ridiculous.

Also, I stated that I did not agree with her views that other children should not be considered in CS calculations as additional children in intact marriages meant less money per capita.

At the time I posted, Ms. CP SM had not put the facts of her case up. THough because I was speaking in GENERALITIES rather in her specific case. my post was on point.... She started her post in GENERALITIES and I kept my post there, until I got flamed for stating I did not agree that additional children should not be considered.

As for whether BM in the OP's case pays or not, the relationship should be terminated -- and then CS would not be an issue. It is not needed in this instance, except to keep BM from filing harassing lawsuits in court. The NCP IN THIS CASE has abdicated her position by her lack of protection on the kids. The CS is a non-issue. It is not financially needed and the kids are better where they are. CS only keeps the BM a part of the equation... which is not in the children's best interests. But I digress.

Does the OP have a legitimate concern in thier specific instance? YES. But should she be advocating that second children mean less and should not get an equal portion of their parent's income as any other sibling (especially on a website dedicated to a CHILD's right to EQUAL access to each of their parents)? that would be a big NEGATIVE.

It does not matter if your father is demon spawn or your mother is in the running for beyotch of the year. It does not matter if you are 17 years and 10 months or 17 minutes 10 seconds old, you should get the same consideration in court when your father's (or in this case Mother's) $$ is doled out. Since CS is not based on the child's needs, CS orders are an arbitrary number based on what a person makes relative to what another person makes. There is nothing in the calculations that considers the cost of living in an area, or whether a child who has parents living at certain levels would spend the given amount on the needs of the child. The guidelines are in need of reform. I think it would take some higher math algorithms to properly put together guidelines that would care for every child.

Sounds like BM in the OP's case is really messed up. This is a mother capable... but not doing anything. I agree that those who CAN, SHOULD. I also think that getting a reduction in CS for calamities should be EASIER to get even if it is on a temporary basis. As things are, you spend 4-5 years of the reduction $$ on GETTING the reduction (if you can).  When a split family with half siblings living in two households hits a calamity, the PAYING parent should get some immediate relief upon a showing of need. That way when the parent gets on their feet, they are not facing a huge arrearage and are unable to dig themselves and the children depending on them out of the hole. The RECEIVING parent would have to pull just as hard to make up the slack, or pull in their belts too. It happens, life is unpredictable. IF the calamity happens in the household of the RECEIVING parent the adjustments are already being made... the child is already getting all of their portion from the NCP household and they will get the reduced amount directly from the receiving parent's household based on their NEED.

I am advocating for instances where both parents are fit and have an AVERAGE income. When a guideline is set it should be a MEDIAN - not  a worst case scenario situation like the OP or like mine.

Guidelines SHOULD take subsequent children into consideration. Let's face it, a child that is older but comes late to the CS table (as in the case of a one night stand 10 or 12 years ago that the BM finds out after testing 20 men that the NCP is the father) they should get just the same consideration as any of their otherwise "legitimate" half siblings.

Genie, I have nothing personal against the original poster. I just found her position on what should be the NORMAL CS order to be unreasonable. Especially since her personal situation torques the heck out of NORMAL.

[cathy]

I did not flame you, and if you took it that way, I apologize.  I was simply disagreeing, stating my point of view and asking for clarification on your statements.   I personally felt that you went on the defensive and somewhat attacked me, twisting my statements into things I did not say or imply.

Personally, I still think the NORMAL CS calculations should not take into account additional children.  That is just my opinion, and I think that should be the case for additional children of the CP and/or the NCP.  You disagree.  

In a normal situation, both parents agree and adjust to life changes.  But in a divorce situation, you have split that and there are now 2 families.  I don't know that I think it is fair that the decisions and actions of one family should have an effect on members of the other family.  Sure, there is gray area because in this case, the kids are members of BOTH families.

Children come with a financial responsibility, just like most things in life.  Since it takes 2 people to enter into accepting this responsibility, any changes (especially voluntary changes such as having additional children) to that responsibility should be a joint decision by those 2 people.  That is typically no longer possible in a divorce situation.  

I especially think this is wrong in the case of the CP having additional children.  Now, in theory, a CP can have more and more kids, requiring the NCP to pay more and more in CS for kids that aren't the NCP's!  (This is due to the CP's available income being reduced to account for their additional expense for the additional kids).  At least in the case of the NCP having additional kids and child support being lowered, there is the assumption that the money NOT being paid will be used to help support the NCP's kids.

Now - back to the more personal side of things - one that we are in TOTALLY agreement about :-)    The first time the biological mom tried to get out of CS, we asked that she terminated her parental rights.  We are thinking about asking again, although I'm sure she would not agree to do that.  She basically has no parental rights - she abdicated those when she did not protect her kids (and I didn't even go into the emotional abuse on her part).

And I also agree with you that CS calculations have nothing to do with the actual costs of the kids.  I think the whole manner in which CS is calculated is flawed badly - although I don't have any real answer on how to fairly calculate it that would cover all situations.  And even if I did, I'm sure others would disagree!!

Oh - one other thing.  We have been on the other side of the coin as well.  Before the girls came to live with us, we were paying child support for 3 kids (there is a 21 yr old son as well who is no longer in the CS equation).  For these 3 kids, we were paying $1390/month.  Was that money used for the kids?  Of course not!  Especially considering that we had to provide clothes/etc for them for close to 50% of the time, any extras they did or had were provided by us.  So we have been on that side of the equation as well!

On a personally note, I obviously do not know the details of your personal situation, but the little you shared sounds horrible.  This probably isn't the appropriate forum to discuss this further, but I am curious - were there any criminal charges brought in your case due to the sexual abuse/rape?

[POC]

CS guidelines should seamlessly apportion an equitable amount of money between the parents for the reasonable needs of children across the time sharing and income distributions that are reality in today's society. If the CP is making $10,000 per month and the NCP $1,400 per month, and the child spends 13% or more time with the NCP, then the CP should pay CS to the NCP. That is because the NCP's share of joint income is roughly 12.3%.

The mathematics to determine what is equitable is very simple.

[4honor]

No message

[leon clugston]

there will simply be no true or worthy equitable distribution from CP-NCP, or NCP-CP, untill the states and the goverment are out of the equation, and to where there is no financial, or pecuinary favotism for these guys to base such awards off of.The first factor in any situation, reguadless of ones standing in the administrative world, is the fact one either parent can at anytime, and rightfully so choose not to acheive there potental goals, or monetary maximus, this incorporated with the fact that so many people use the money not in proportion for the child"en" compared to what they receive, defeats any standing of credibility of it being for the child, and comes down to a simple maintence award for one parent or the other.

[POC]

To the extent that children deserve to be kept safe and healthy, the government has valid authority to order child support be paid from one parent to another. Beyond that, the government is over-stepping its authority by imposing a standard of living. Unless it's a matter of safety or well-being/health, the government should not dictate for what or how much parents spend on their children.

[leon clugston]

you are one hundred percent rright, however the validity of the intnet of the goverment is limited to the deffinitions sought forth for a proper resolve and as stated befor there is no true deffinition of a custodial, noncustodial parent anywhere in the CFR's or under the Federal code(statuatory law) so the ending result is simplily its for money, and has nothing to do for the general welfare of the kids.