Why looking to keep c/s low?

[timtow]

Dude, I don't know who you're talking to here, but if it's me, take a deep breath and reread the posts.  I think you'll feel a lot better afterwards.  Ftr, I am not the one who filed.  And I'm not financially dependent on my x, who's in our daughter's life daily.  I don't know who you're angry at, but I think you got the wrong number here.

[Ref]

You are assuming that all custodials do what is best for their children. I have heard many similar stories to mine that can tell you WHY some of us want to pay the minimum.

A few months after they seperated for the final time, BM moved herself 1500 miles away with SD to live with her mother for a few months until she got back on her feet. She was supposed to move back after 6 months but 12 years later, they are both 1500 miles away.

BM's mother, after a couple of months, asked BM to get a job and help with the bills so BM moved into Section 8 housing at $45/month rent and denying her own mother contact with SD. The $45 sounds like a good deal but considering SD never could play outside because of drug dealers and SWAT teams regularly visiting the complex, it isn't so good. BM received OVER the minimum child support. SD ate Hamburger helper 4 days a week and government cheese. Where did the CS go? BM decided she wanted to better herself, so she elected not to work (except enough to keep on welfare) and go to school for 10 years. SD would call up and say she had no food in the house and was hungry.

Now BM has her masters and DH's company closed its doors and he was left on the sidewalk still paying over 100% of the child's expenses (per her mom's financial affidavit) and a good 33% of BM's.

We are not alone. There are thousands of non-custodials out there that are paying not only 100% of the child's upbringing but paying custodial's bills like alcohol and the other parent's student loans.

DH never had a problem with paying more if it was to go the SD, but at least in our case, it is not.

As far as wanting it written in law that he is to pay the minimum, I don't see any reason that he should be required to pay any more. If he is a good dad, he will buy the kid clothes and other "extras". College is the same deal. If you were still married, would a judge make it law that the two of you owe your child college? What if your child turns out to be a criminal or even decided to disown you? Do you think that is right that you would be forced to put the kid through school?

Things like this definately show that there is a line between your moral and your legal responsibility. Just be the best parent you can and be as generous as you can with your ex (ie forgiving mistakes and allowing ample time with the child etc) and I am sure, unless you have a kook on your hands, that her will return the favor.

There are reasons to lower your support. Maybe not in your situation, but there are a lot of people's shoes you have yet to walk in.

Best wishes to you and your family,
Ref

[dipper]

Your STBX may want all that for the child...but, he can save himself without the money going to YOU.  he can provide for her college when she is 18, without giving you the money to save now.

While I do believe you want what is best for your child - you seem not to accept that what you believe is BEST is NOT everyone's idea.   Your STBX should not have to pay YOU for what you believe is the best thing for the child.  He should be able to have his own ideas on that and do with as he sees fit.  

Basically, your belief should not be forced upon him.  Extra money should not be taken for your beliefs.  

I dont view this as being about the child, even though I do see you are wanting her best interest.   This is about YOUR wants...what you want to happen...and why you dont understand why your STBX doesnt agree with you......................

Some people may actually believe you can raise a happy, successful child who is strong enough to make it, stand on her/his own feet without  simply handing over everything.....

[timtow]

"When man goes out and makes a living (or gains income through some means that included making a smart investment -- or investing in private disability insurance), Then he has some pride in "providing for" his family.

Whether he is handing his $$ to the government or to some other entity, he still wants to see the bang for his buck (e.g., what is the money being spent on?) When an NCP (generally the man) hands his $$ over to the CP, he RARELY sees the bang for his buck. Many times they not only pay CS, but they also end up paying for BASICS too, on a limited income. They see their children in designer clothes, but the kids haven't been to the dentist in over a year or the kids need a haircut. They see their kids without properly fitting shoes, but the CP has just purchased a new vehicle. They are handing over money with no say in how it is being spent and with the possibility that THEY will have to pay it again directly to the store/dentist/barber. If you have to pay for things twice, wouldn't you want a discount on the original bill?"

Thanks for that, 4honor.  It makes sense to me.  I would approach it slightly differently, but I can see where this comes from.

I am in a somewhat similar situation; my x's disability and treatment can make him extremely erratic, and he doesn't realize when it's happening.  I know he means well, but basically I spend a lot of time catching shit that falls from the sky, and will likely do so as long as dd is under 18.  Is it fair?  No.  Is it the reality?  Yeah.  So I understand damage control (though it sounds like you're approaching it from the standpoint of justice; my take is a little more realist, I think).  My approach has been to control what I can, and insulate dd and myself from the rest as far as I can, recognizing that I won't be able to cover everything.  Some years ago I recognized that to some extent, I was simply screwed, and would have to accept that as a cost of business, so to speak.  I guess I see parallels here.  If my X were the CP, I would certainly strive to limit as far as possible the amount going through his hands, and try to set things up independently.  Not because he's a jerk -- he's not -- but because I know how he and money get along.  I think, though, that he'd probably go along with it far enough for that to work most of the time.  Which is not necessarily the case with all CPs.

The life-insurance thing I was referring to was a post --  on this board, maybe? -- where a guy was showing off his cleverness in referring his wife to Social Security's advertised payout in case of his death. An unwillingness to self-insure, basically.

The limited-income thing, though...look, I've been plenty poor, been through bad recessions in declining towns, places where 200 people show up the first day a minimum wage job is advertised.  (Remember _Roger & Me_?  I know that one.)  I also know what I've seen people with no education and limited English do for their kids.  Yes, they worked like g*ddamn demons.  12-, 16-hour days.  It's not brain surgery; it's volume, showing up, an eye for opportunity, two-bit marketing.  They lived like hell themselves, but made sure their kids were better off.  The kids went to college, had professional lives, said hello to the upper-middle class and are raising their kids there.  There's people doing that kind of thing via the internet now, which means you don't have to be in any particular place anymore.  If you're not sick or such a dreamer you trip over your own feet all the time, and you've got any kind of spark to you...man, there's a lot of money out there.  So, you know.  If what you're saying is that the NCP doesn't value providing all he can, fine.  But if you're saying it's not possible to do better...I think I buy that in a pretty limited number of cases.

:D gee, if the GOP still had a non-churchy wing, I guess I'd be joining.

[kricket25]

Wow - that really hit a nerve with me. I'm really happy that you feel that way and that you feel the mother of your child will use that money to take wonderful care of your child. But what if as in my case - (a stepmom to my husband who has a 12-year-old), the mom doesn't take care of the child? She barely sees her, and we are fighting for custody tooth and nail while the child gets emotionally abused and DOESN'T get the things that she needs? Even though, with the child support my husband paid out last year - the ex made more than my husband? Why are we paying child support and then also paying for a mother to neglect her child? My husband's daughter never sees one red cent that we pay her - and we pay her a small fortune each month. So while you are happy to pay to your stbx, our experience is not as wonderful as yours.

[timtow]

I'd be quite happy for him to turn over the money to her college savings plan, rather than passing it through me.  Waiting till 18 is not very nice to her, since frequently that kind of 'plan' leaves a kid scrambling when the promised money doesn't show at the last minute, and the FAFSA deadline's come and gone.  And of course he's entitled to his own ideas.  But in our case, it'd say quite a bit about a guy if he chose to fund his own third crack at university instead of funding his daughter's education.  

(note to ref: the college-payment requirement had to do, I believe, with cutting out a way for well-off dads to negotiate scandalously low c/s.  Used to be a lot of cases of guys threatening not to help with college as an arm-twister.  So another example, I suppose, of support rules based on the worst parents' behavior.)

I don't think "strong enough to make it" has very much to do with steering your kid away from crippling debt.  There's no reason to put those kinds of obstacles in a kid's way for the hell of it; it's not character-building.  College kids used to build plenty of character on a tenth the debt level kids have now, and life is plenty hard without an extra mortgage's worth of debt.  Of course, if dd's dead set on struggling through on her own, that's nice too.  The savings will continue to grow and be there for her when she figures out there's no great virtue in banging your head against the wall when you don't have to.

Speaking of which, I need to get back to work and knock off the chat board stuff for a while.  Thanks for taking time for the conversation, everyone.  It's been enlightening & valuable.

[CGS]

"The life-insurance thing I was referring to was a post -- on this board, maybe? -- where a guy was showing off his cleverness in referring his wife to Social Security's advertised payout in case of his death. An unwillingness to self-insure, basically."


I am the poster you are referring to.  And you are incorrect in your assumption that my suggestion to point to ss benefits constitutes an unwillingness to self insure.

I am the CP. I have our child 75% of the time by my x's choosing.  I support our child 100% on my income, and CSED deposits ALL of x's child support directly into our child's 529 college savings plan.  

I have a $500,000 life insurance plan payable into a trust I have set up for my child and an additional $250,000 policy payable to my estate to settle any personal and business debt I may have at the time of my death... any remaining funds are also payable into my childs trust.  My attorney and my father are the trustees charged with maintianing the trust after my death, and so long as my child is under 18, 100% of all interest earned is to go to the day to day support of our child.

I opposed purchasing a seperate policy payable directly to my x for many reasons. I am adaquately insured now and refuse to purchase an additional policy that I am certain my x will spend on their needs as opposed to our childs.  I was able to convince the judge in our case that via the over $800 a month my x would receive in benefits and the interest generated from the trust I have established, our child would be more than adaquately cared for without giving my x a reason to anxiously await my death in hopes of receiving a life insurance pay out.

You jumped to  conclusions. I am in your shoes, I share many of your beliefs that it is my role as a parent to work hard to ensure I leave my child in a better financial position than I am in. However, unlike you I do not believe it is fair to impose those beliefs on my x. I havs my own idea of how our child should be raised, and I will foot the bill for it.  I give my x the opportunity to contribute to extras but Ido not believe I have any right to demand it.  

You are a new single parent. I have been one for 5 years, and I'm sure I sounded just like you 5 years ago.  If I can share just one thing that I've learned along the way with you... it would be forget any preconceived notions you have about what's "right".   Build your budget around YOUR income. Sock the child support away for your child when and if you receive it... and go on about your business.

I agree with you that summer camps, music lessons, etc are all valuable activities for children.. but they dont all have to be done at once. You have 18 years of your childs life to fit all of those experiences in .  My child is 5, and has a firm grasp on the concept of money and can do basic math (addition and subtraction).  Each month as I'm paying bills, I invite my child to sit with me and I share our household budget in simple terms. Ie: we hae $3000 to spend. Here's the house, car, insurance, groceries, etc etc.  And here's your activities, they each cost xyz.. which do you want to do this month to equal $?

You have a lot to learn, but trust me it can be done, and the less you depend on your x the better parent you will both be.

[JVondrak76]

I really don't think you get the big picture.  Seriously - I am not trying to bust your hump, but my God.  I can't believe some of the things you are saying.  You are basically saying "tough luck, suck it up, and pay the CP whatever you have to because your kids deserve every penny you make."  And yes, I agree that I should give everything single thing I can to my kids, and I do that every single day I get up and go to work.  I have an 18 month old daughter at home, and two step-children that live with their mother.  The thing is, the ex-wife WILL NOT work, but lets her current husband and my husband support her.  She plays the system.  The kids DO NOT see a red cent of the support she receives from my husband.  They go without many things, leaving it up to us to make sure they are cared for.  We would NEVER let them go without.  But, she uses us.  She uses the child support to do whatever she wants with - she and her husband are not hurting for money AT ALL.  And the kids walk around in ratty, dirty clothes.  Actually, my husband JUST called me, and she is going on a "girls weekend" trip in two weeks, so we are keeping the kids.  She does this all the time!  So, I don't care what anyone says, there is no reason to increase my husband's support amount.  We provide for the kids' needs.  Plus, the more we pay his ex, the less we can provide for the other child we have at home!  And if we can't care for her, who is going to do it?

[Jade]

>I have been on both sides of the child support issue. I think
>that the guidelines are very unfair across the board. It
>varies according to the state you live in and that should not
>be. When you pay hundreds of dollars a month and then the BM
>asks for half a copay is just ridiculas. Child support is
>suppose to be HALF the amount to raise the child at the
>standards of living from when the divorce happens. Many CP's
>think that is it for ALL the costs involved. In my state,
>child support goes until 21 years old while in other states is
>goes to 18. My state also MAKES the NCP pay for their "share"
>of college PLUS child support. THe whole system is just not
>right.
>You have great goals for your daughter and many CP's could
>only dream of providing all of that for their kids. Child
>support is for the bare essentials (foold.clothing, shelter)
>and not extra to save for college. It is great that you will
>not rely on child support for every day bills but MANY people
>can not do that....

You can't have the child support the same in every state as every state has a higher or lower cost of living.  My state has a high cost of living.  The amount that would be ordered in the state (which has a lower cost of living) that I grew up in wouldn't even begin to cover the expenses where I live.

In my state, both parents income are taken into consideration when computing child support. The one who makes more, pays more.  And goes until 23 years of age, unless the child does not go to college, then it ends at 18.  

And, yes, college costs are being split based on income.  Courts are going to look at what the plan was when the parents were together.  And my ex and I have every intention of sending our children to college.  

[mounta_00]

I"m confused as to where all this crippling college debt comes from unless one arbitrarily chooses to take it on?

I'll take U of Kansas as an example since I live in the region. Tuition is @ 4k a year, add room and board and books you're looking at @ 10k a year total or 40-50k over the 4 year period. That is a gross total, and doesn't take into account any form of scholarship or grant or subsidized loans. That is for the top school in the state. U of Missouri is @ 2k more a year. That also presumes heading straight to the 4 year institution. Many here go and do 2 years at Juco before shifting to their last 2 years at a 4 year. In the metro CC system it's @  78/credit hr, or @ 2300/year for 30 credit hrs. Again that's gross, and doesn't even take into account the A+ system which will pretty much cover all tuition and books if you maintain a reasonable GPA during your two years.

Now if someone is adamant about picking a specific private insitution, then they take the chance to take on that debt. Parents need not structure their lives to accomodate a belief that only a high end private college will suffice and struggle to do so. If you want to steer them away from crippling debt, ensure they go to a reasonably priced college and not give them carte blanche to feel entitled to any education that money can buy. For the majority of the population, being prudent when it comes to college has to take priority anyways.

Some parents also see value in allowing their children to make their way on their own as adults. My father was a physician, and could have easily afforded to pay for all of his 3 kids to go to college. He didn't, and we all paid our own way, and were better off for it. What he chose to do with his money as we moved into adulthood, should be his decision, and it shouldn't reflect badly on him if he chose not to spend a dime on us as adults.

I can tell you this. My stepdaughter will be helped with costs at a state school, and beyond that, expectations will fall on her as an adult to take responsibility for her life, and the choices that come with it. There will be no funding on our part for all these possible future endevors into her adult life, as there are reasonable limits that will be adhered to. For us, help means learning how to move into life on your own, not a continuall subsidy.