Why looking to keep c/s low?

[Stirling]

There are some NCPs out there that have decided that they will not pay CS.  To that end they have structured their lives so they don't have to.  In some cases they work off the books.  In other cases they don't work at all.  They would probably be living a more abundant and prosperous life if they would pay the CS and spend there time working on ways to attract more money into their life rather than on figuring out ways to avoid paying CS.  

It makes sense to earn that extra dollar even if 30% of it will go to CS.  The other 70% inproves the NCP's lifestyle which their child will also enjoy.


Edited to add:
I would not recommend that a NCP get a second job since that would most likely cut into their already limited parenting time.  

[annemichellesdad]

Ok custodial parents, let's make a deal...

We NCPs (I'm one of those unwilling ones whose child was outright stolen) won't complain about HOW MUCH we are order to pay each month if YOU agree to 1) that the court order also specify how much of your own income will go to the child each month, 2) you agree to be subject to INCARCERATION for contempt if you don't pay it (even when you lose your job), and 3) a change of custody to the NCP, along with the same amount of support, should you interfere in the NCPs court-order time with his child.

[Giggles]

I just checked....I got a CS Check TODAY!!! wooo hooo!!!!

Now maybe I can afford to get the kids something for Christmas!!!  Granted $454.82 won't go very far...but it's better than not having anything at all!!!!

[Giggles]

100% of the CS because the NCP doesn't pay???  Who's NCP just took off and abandoned thier child?  Who begs their NCP to spend time with thier child?? Who's NCP calls to ask for time, then renigs and the CP is left with a devestated child to console?

SIGH...it's a messed up problem and no rubber stamp will fit all senarios.

[sdbleve]

>Yeah, that's probably how it'll go.  I'd prefer that we
>figure it up and do it legal, though, because otherwise I have
>no guarantee he'll pay.  He might say that, say, music lessons
>are a great idea, pay for the first month, and then stand
>there turning his pockets inside out (he's got disability
>income of -- well, let's just say the amount that the
>insurance co. pays into his retirement account alone is more
>than he'll be paying in c/s monthly, and if he's off
>disability he's capable of making big bucks, just wants to
>switch to a low-pay career and go to school).  Then I'm there
>stuck either telling the kid "no more music lessons", with the
>lesson attached that there's no point working at something
>because it's just going to get yanked, or paying for the whole
>thing myself.
>
>I'll have primary care.  Liberal visitation.  
>
>

Timtow, I don't want to come across like I am attacking you, I am just trying understand.

First, the term visitation is abhorrent to me. It implies that a parent is a "visitor" in their child's life. No parent should be a vistor, they are a parent with all the rights and responsibilities that go with that title. Why will you and your ex not share custody of your child. Custody should be 50-50 unless there are specific reason why it could not be. (Primarily the safety of the child).

And what exactally is "Liberal" visitation? Who decides what is liberal? You? What is to keep you from enrolling your child in all sorts of activities (that you feel are important) and then these activities interfering with your  ex's ability to spend time with his child. Read the other post on these boards, it happens all the time. And while it might not be done purposefully, (there are those parents that involve their children in so many activities the kid's head's are left spinning) it  interferes with the other parents ability to spend quality time with their children. I have a co-worker that experiences this. When he finally gets a chance to spend time with his kids, they are so exhausted from all the activities their mother has them doing, they only want to unwind, or spend time with their friends in an unstructured enviroment. Bottom line, dad has the kids physically, not emotionally.

Now on to the comment about your ex's disability income. You specifically mention that the amount his insurance pays into his retirement account is more than what he would be paying in child support.

1. Is that the guideline support, or the amount you are looking for?

2. Why would you even mention this? you already said in a previous post that you think that putting money away in retirement is an appropriate use of funds as it prevents the children from having to take care of us when we get older. So are we to assume by your posts that it is only important when it is your retirement account that is being funded?

Lastly, if you ex is on disability, his income has been reduced. It sounds like you are capable of (and are) earning a good wage.  If you both had 50/50 custody of your child (as it should be) then you can pay him support......

And to qualify my position....That is exactally my position. I am the custodial parent, time split on paper is 54-46, (though thru choices their mother has made, the children are with me more than that). I am the high earner, and I pay her child and spousal support. Am I happy about it? NO! But even though the time split has now evolved into more like 70-30 I still pay "what the court ordered". (Even though now, she would most likely have to pay me) Why, because I see it is what is in the best interest of my children. She would not be capable of paying me support, and with out the money I give her, my children would be the ones that would have to do with out. And I try to never schedule things on their mothers "custody time" even when I know it is something they would like to do. I suggest they tell their mother about it. If she thinks it is a good idea, then they get to go. If their mother can't afford to pay for it, I make arrangements to do so....even though it often means that I go with out.

[timtow]

>>
>>
>
>Timtow, I don't want to come across like I am attacking you, I
>am just trying understand.
>

No offense taken.

>First, the term visitation is abhorrent to me.

Me too.  I agree with you.  I'm just using the system's terms.  I stand corrected.

>Why will you and
>your ex not share custody of your child. Custody should be
>50-50 unless there are specific reason why it could not be.
>(Primarily the safety of the child).

I agree, unless it's harder on the kids to shuttle.  On my end, it has to do with the nature of x's disability, which I'll not go into here, but yes, it's a safety/welfare issue.  He's asking me to take primary care for his own reasons, so that's convenient and saves an ugly/expensive fight.  I have no driving need to be Martyred All-The-Time Mom.

>And what exactally is "Liberal" visitation? Who decides what
>is liberal? You? What is to keep you from enrolling your child
>in all sorts of activities (that you feel are important) and
>then these activities interfering with your  ex's ability to
>spend time with his child.

There's no reason you should've known this, but x and I have been separated for 1.5 years.  I've tried to structure things so that he sees her every day, and she's had few days in her life without him.  I don't schedule her for anything during "his time" unless he consents and we work out something to make it up.  Unless his presence is somehow dangerous to her, or he's bringing her around dangerous people, I don't see how it can be bad for her to spend time with her daddy.  "Liberal" will likely mean "as much as he can tolerate", since he's been the one pulling back.  I expect we'll have more tugging-and-pulling as she gets older and can throw her own wishes into the mix.

> Bottom line, dad has the kids physically, not
>emotionally.

=)  Sense can cure that.

>Now on to the comment about your ex's disability income. You
>specifically mention that the amount his insurance pays into
>his retirement account is more than what he would be paying in
>child support.
>
>1. Is that the guideline support, or the amount you are
>looking for?

Actually it tops even the minimum I'd look for.  

>2. Why would you even mention this? you already said in a
>previous post that you think that putting money away in
>retirement is an appropriate use of funds as it prevents the
>children from having to take care of us when we get older. So
>are we to assume by your posts that it is only important when
>it is your retirement account that is being funded?

No.  If he's old and broke she's got the same problem as she will if I'm old and broke. The idea is that his disability income is so high that the insured retirement match alone beats the c/s payment.  This is private disability, not SSD.

>Lastly, if you ex is on disability, his income has been
>reduced.

Yes.  It's still more than most American households see.  Private disability insurance is a very good thing to have.

 It sounds like you are capable of (and are) earning a
>good wage.  If you both had 50/50 custody of your child (as it
>should be) then you can pay him support......

His income will still likely top mine.  At that point I wouldn't be obliged to pay him directly -- it'd be the other way around -- but I'd certainly agree to funnel any over-min into accounts and payees for her.  

>And to qualify my position....That is exactally my position. I
>am the custodial parent, time split on paper is 54-46, (though
>thru choices their mother has made, the children are with me
>more than that). I am the high earner, and I pay her child and
>spousal support. Am I happy about it? NO! But even though the
>time split has now evolved into more like 70-30 I still pay
>"what the court ordered". (Even though now, she would most
>likely have to pay me) Why, because I see it is what is in the
>best interest of my children. She would not be capable of
>paying me support, and with out the money I give her, my
>children would be the ones that would have to do with out. And
>I try to never schedule things on their mothers "custody time"
>even when I know it is something they would like to do. I
>suggest they tell their mother about it. If she thinks it is a
>good idea, then they get to go. If their mother can't afford
>to pay for it, I make arrangements to do so....even though it
>often means that I go with out.

You sound like a good daddy with lucky kids.

[timtow]

>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.

And that's the part that has me shaking my head.

>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.

Yes.  Otoh, there's haywire and haywire.  If you know you're not likely to be topping $12/h, well, you can write up the budget yourself, and think, "If we divorce, or if something happens to this fella, can I take care of a kid on my own?  Two?  Three?  Six?"  

>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????

Involuntary is involuntary, but there are many more telecommute, contract, and business options open than there used to be.  The basic principle applies: Get more clever about how to make more $ while preserving time for kid.  Also think about where the limits are & opportunities for having kids work alongside you if the relationships/ages are conducive to that.  

>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?

Or they could get creative during what's hopefully a temporary downturn, and not wait for a local brick-and-mortar employer to show up with jobs on offer.  In the meantime, the income is what it is.

>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?

Then the poor NCP has a problem indeed -- not the at-home butt (and, you know, I've been an at-home mom, and it's not a hell of a lot of fun or relaxation, frankly), but the fact that the kid may not be getting the benefit.  Then the NCP can sue for shared custody and be in a better position to see that the kid does get the benefit.  Otherwise, the NCP can meet the CS limits and then, as previously discussed, go over that in ways that don't touch the CP's bank account.  

>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....

Yes, I know.  Which is the basis of the "what the hell is wrong with people, trying to pay less  money for their kids?"

>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!!!

Look, frankly, child support is and will be the least of our problems.  What I'm asking about -- if you go back to the first post -- is the absence of sentiment that says, "I have children.  They come first.  I will do whatever I need to do to give them everything they can reasonably use, and then I will tuck away as much as I can for when they're older and find ordinary adult uses for the money.  I will at the same time figure out how to spend time being a parent and take care of myself, also knowing that childhood is temporary.  These are the driving forces and I will not willingly do anything that puts the goals in jeopardy."

I gotta get back to work.  More in a while.

[sdbleve]

Timtow,

Some of you previous post have made you sound, well a bit pretentious.

This post has been more down to earth. Thank you for clarifying some things. It does sound like you have the best interests of you child at heart and not necessarily at the expense of you ex.  There are some concepts and decisions that some of us will not agree with, but that is all about personal beliefs.

As a father that has done everthing I can to assure that both parents are involved in my childrens life, I can appreciate the efforts it sounds like you are making. Just remember, it is not about the money, it is about the childrens happiness. And that has no fiscal value.

You have mentioned several times it takes X number of dollars to raise a child. That is not true. There is no way to determine a dollar value for raising a successful child. Ask people that have been raised in low income or imigrant families, that have gone on to be successful in business, medicine, and many other areas. Or, inversely, those that have come from very wealthy families and are now spending time in jail. Money is not the factor that decides success. Personal ambition, drive and responsibility are what decides success in life.

[dipper]

Why are you surprised by your STBX?  It is his responsibility to provide for the child's needs, not for your belief of how life should be.  I do wonder about the custody situation involved.

Quite honestly it sounds as if you dont need his money to begin with, so why does this bother you?  Look at it this way, you have 100% of your money to disburse as you see fit....he on the other hand will not...and then he is being asked to give even more.  

Most NCP's provide a room in their home for their children...they provide during their time with the child.   You have spoken of the time you spend with your child, but what time does the father get?  She is his child as well.....

Saying that a NCP should get a second job means telling that parent that if they only get two weekends per month with their child, they need to work during that time instead of totally focusing on their child.  Now, turn that on yourself....you only get four days a month and YOU are working during that pitiful amount of time.

I have been on both sides....I have always been CP, but my husband was NCP until recently.  I can tell you - on his weekends with his son, he needed to be with his child.  Not working.  And it didnt seem fair when Bm purchases over $200 in bandages that were never used for ss....and which she claimed she donated to charity.........But, dh was made to pay $189 for.  The bills are not always really for the child...just a way to stick it to the other parent.....

In my situation, my ex rarely pays.  He is about $11,000 behind in two years.  I would be happy to get what the courts say he has to pay....which is guidelines.

Also, ask yourself why CS is higher just because a parent makes more money.  A combined income of $5,000 means a child needs more to live than a child whose parents have a combined income of $1,000.  Why?  It is not the child's needs that are being met by that money, but the parents lifestyle.  The needs are housing, clothes, and food.  And designer clothes are not basic needs....

People complain not because they dont love their children, but because the system is not fair.  

It takes the janitors, the common laborers, the cashiers, to make this world survive........not everyone can do freelance.....

[Sherry1]

I will start by saying that not all CP's are money grubbing, but certainly are.  Dh's ex refused to work for years because she could live off of CS just fine as long as she found a man to live with.  DH and I hid our assets from her so she didn't know how much we had and really how much DH made.  Was it wrong?  No way!