Why looking to keep c/s low?

[Stirling]

You seem to be confusing the legal aspects related to divorce with your own set of moral and ethical beliefs.

Legally CS will be calculated based on the state's guidelines.  Legally that is all that the NCP is required to pay in support of their child.  If the divorce agreement doesn't provide that the NCP contribute towards college or "extras" then he legally doesn't had to pay for them.  There are a hand full of states that can order college support, but I don't know if you reside in one of them.  Bottom line is the NCP is only legally required to pay what the CO requires him to pay.  So long as the NCP is paying what he is court ordered to pay then legally all is as it should be, and the NCP is not a deadbeat.  You may personally feel that the NCP should be paying more, but that gets back to your moral and ethical belief system which has absolutely no relevance here.

My advice to you is to make every effort possible to effectively co-parent with your Ex.  Allow him to be an active and participating part of the decision making process related to the parenting of your child.  Allow your Ex to be active in your child's life.  Doing this will create an environment where your Ex will want to help pay for extras.


Now on to the moral and ethical issues.  Every person has their own individual moral and ethical belief systems of how to raise a child and be a good parent.  One person's belief system is no better or worse than another person's belief system.  They are just different.  

The CS guidelines is merely a suggestion of how much should be spent in raising a child.  In reality some parents will spend more than this suggested amount and other parents will spend less than this suggested amount.  The amount actually spent will be determined by each parent's moral and ethical belief systems.  

Your parenting belief system seems to lean towards spending more than the guidelines suggest, and there is nothing wrong with this.  However, your decision to do this does not legally or morally and ethically obligate your Ex to contribute more than what he is required to pay per the CO.  Again, the NCP is not a deadbeat for refusing to pay more than what is court ordered, since according to his moral and ethical belief systems he is parenting his child properly.  Your belief system is no better or worse then his belief system.  They are just different and each should be respected.  

[Stirling]

"It's not giving it to my ex; it's giving it to my child."

This is a pretty naive statement when you consider the legal aspects of CS.  There are no laws that require CS to be spent on the child, or even to account for how the CS is spent.  In reality CS becomes the sole property of the CP and can be spent on whatever the CP wants to spend it on.  The child doesn't even have a legal claim or interest in the CS.  In reality CS is merely a redistribution of wealth between one parent and the other.

[Stirling]

"he's got disability income"

I'm now confused.  Your Ex is on disability yet you posted that he should get a second job.  If he's disabled how can he work?

[timtow]

thanks for the lucid posts, Stirling.  Yes, retirement comes first, for several fin reasons, not least unavailability of old-age grants and loans beyond whatever might remain of Soc Sec and Medicare/Medicaid.  The idea is to do both, though.   Am on track for both solo.  Does not negate x's ethical responsibility to dd, noted in your post below.   (And actually we do live in a CO-college-costs state, though then you're left with the enforcement realities.)  Will come back to the legal/ethical distinction later....

[timtow]

yes, which is why you can structure an agreement so that over-min is channeled without going through the CP's hands.  ;)  My x gets lucky on this count.  Actually I offered to set things up this way, but he declined, would rather it all just go through me.

[timtow]

No, didn't say he should get a second job (though I'd prefer he either kept his disability or, once off, maintained his current income level; he's capable of it).  Am saying that if a hypothetical NCP is strapped for cash, and is attempting to solve problem by seeking c/s reduction, why not work second job instead and boost both own income and c/s?

[Giggles]

and not everyone can or is willing to give all for thier children.  I think that is what the majority of the posters are trying to tell you.

You say there are those who shouldn't have children, I agree to some extent, but many who are on this board already have the children in place prior to things going haywire.

What is your opinion on the following issue:

Say a Highly paid NCP gets laid off (happens alot), and the only way he/she can get another job paying anything close to what they were getting paid was to move across country????

OR they could take a less paying job and TRY to get a downward mod on the CS just to be able to live and stay near thier child?

What if that same  poor NCP had a vindictive PBFH who uses the CS to keep sitting on their butt at home...and he/she kept taking the NCP to court every other year just to up the CS?

There are many many different senarios to CS and if you hang around a while you will see.  I fully believe that the "Family" court needs to be completely overhauled because many children are being harmed by vindictive X's, uncaring NCP's, deabeats and a system of support that doesn't work!!

I am not only a CP, I'm also a NCP...so I see both sides of the problem.  My 2 that are with me don't get support...it's ordered, and I have tried all I can to get the support they need, but it doesn't happen.  WHY???  The one I send support to...gets what she needs, has what she needs, except I have a vindictive X who took her across country and now I only get to see her 1-2 X's a year AND by doing that...It UPPED my CS obligation because now I have less time with her...It's not fair and doesn't fit in a perfect tidy package all wrapped up with a bow.  I am owed over $17,000 in back CS, he's working, he just doesn't pay and Child Support Enforcement can't seem to get him to pay because once they "find" him, he takes off again.  Sure it "Should NOT" be this way...but that's the REALITY of CS that many of us face....

We don't want to seem that we are picking on you, it's just we don't feel you quite seem to grasp the true reality of how messed up Child support can become!!!

[Giggles]

that is probably how it would go....but the world is NOT perfect and neither is CS and how it is set up.

Many times those same NCP"s have TOO HIGH set CS already and are barely making it.  Many places don't have 2nd jobs available that are willing to work around an NCP's schedule.  And of course there are also the vindictive greedy CP's that haul that same NCP to court for every last dime they can squeez out of them.  Course there are also NCP's that didn't choose to be NCP.  Their X's take off with the kids, NCP has no $ because of the HIGH CS so he/she can't fight a move.

Are you aware that in many States the government can withhold up to 60% of the NCP's income, leaving the NCP 40% to live on?  

Then there is the true NCP dead beat who skates thier responsibility altogether.  Like my X...I have received 1 CS check since Feb 05 for $120.  I have let CSE know countless times where he is, where he works and they claim they can't find him...what am I to do??  He owes me over $17K in arrears...yah he should get a 2nd job...could you please find him and tell him to do that??? THANKS!!!

[Stirling]

I assume that when you say "min-CS" you mean in accordance with the guidelines, and what you are looking for is an agreement with the NCP to pay above what the guidelines would require.  Barring extenuating circumstances a judge doesn't really have much wiggle room to deviate from the guidelines.  However, you are correct that the NCP can agree to pay more than guidelines and it would become part of the CO and be legally binding.  Of course there is no incentive for the NCP to do so.  Why would the NCP voluntarily obigate himself to pay an amount that a judge has no ability to award otherwise?  Also, the NCP can still pay for extras if he choses to without the extra amount being included in the CO.  Do you really think that your Ex will be agreeable to paying CS in excess of the guidelines?


Edited to add:
Many years ago when I was going through my own divorce my Ex presented me with a CS offer during a settlement conference with our attorney's.  Her generous offer was that that I would pay 150% of the CS guidelines until our children turned 23 years old which is 5 years after our state's normal age of emancipation.  I can still hear her attorney telling me that "this settlement can be done if both parties agree to it" (since a judge could not order it otherwise).  I then asked her attorney, "if this is such a great deal would you take it if you were in my shoes?"  My Ex's attorney remained silent.  So then I looked at my Ex and said, "Like your attorney I'm going to pass on your offer".  

[becky]

A CP could also take a second job to provide the extras she/he would like to provide for the child.  BTDT.