Welcome to SPARC Forums. Please login or sign up.

May 26, 2024, 02:04:15 AM

Login with username, password and session length

As an NCP, do you feel that child support orders are just and fair in your case and that no matter what, the CP's lifestyle should be maintained for the sake of the children?

Started by olanna, Nov 05, 2007, 11:53:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

As an NCP, do you feel that child support orders are just and fair in your case and that no matter w

I totally agree with the statement that the current system works very well.
2 (11.1%)
I feel it works ok for me in most cases.
1 (5.6%)
The current system does not work for me at all.
15 (83.3%)

Total Members Voted: 88


The true nature of child support has nothing to do with ensuring that children are financially supported, and everything to do with "the money".  

If the true nature and purpose of child support was to ensure the support of the children, then the child support laws would require the receiver of child support to spend the child support on the children's direct needs.  The laws would also require the receiver of child support to account for how the child support is spent.  The current laws and system require nether.  In fact the current laws and system are structured so that the child support received becomes that person's sole property and can be spent on anything they choose to spend it on.  They are not required to spend one cent on their children.  In fact the children don't even have a legal right or claim to the money.  Again the true nature of child support has nothing to do with ensuring that the children are financially supported.  In truth what we call child support is merely a redistribution of wealth form one parent to the other.  As a result the current child support laws and system is flawed at its very core, and doesn't work.

Also, in most states the child support guidelines are not even based on current economic principles or data directly related to what it actually costs to support a child in a divorced family.  In fact, the typical child support guidelines is based solely on income and completely ignores expenses.  Accordingly, the child support awards have no relationship to the actual economic costs of financially supporting a child.  As a result, the underlying child support awards are also flawed and do nothing to ensure the financial support of the child.  Again, it is merely about the money and transferring wealth.  

I also find it interesting that whenever the topic of accountability of how child support is spent comes up, that typically the people who receive minor amounts of child have no problem with accountability.  However, the vast majority of people who receive large amounts of child support would never agree to accounting for how it is spent.  One of my core beliefs is that people with nothing to hide, will hide nothing.  So I wonder, what are these people trying to hide by not agreeing to a system of accountability?  Could it be that the truth would come out that the child support received isn't being used on the child's direct financial needs?  Or that the child support awards are excessive?

Personally I would like the current laws and system scrapped and a new systems adopted.  I would love to see a new system premised on both parents financially supporting their children.  I would like to see an escrow type account set up where both parents would pay into it, and both parents can withdraw from it to pay for the direct expenses of the child.  There would be detailed regulations/guidelines which would clearly list the expenses that qualify, and expenses that don't qualify for reimbursement out of the account.  I personally think that this would be a much better system


In your case, which I feel might be rather isolated.  I've heard so many stories where they sit on the money owed, or continue to take too much money for an already reduced CS order.

My own brother took out a loan to get his cars unbooted, even though he didn't owe a dime extra, because of screw up on the books.  Interestingly enough, it took them nearly 3 weeks to get off their asses and unboot his cars, so in the meantime, neither him or his wife had anything to drive. His biohag moved to another state, in the meantime, so he had no way to get to see his kids unless he put a rental car on his credit card.

Did they send him a refund for overpayment??? Oh no.  They told him they would credit his account on the other end!  Now, you tell me how well that worked...

And I have some stories of my very own...affecting me as a CP and an NCP...but they don't matter as much as those that are in the mire right now.


I have NO PROBLEM with accountability...because...yup..you guessed it...I'm a CP that gets a pittance.  I had documented proof that the NCP had arrears, I had documented proof that the NCP was making far more than he "stated" and since this was an Interstate case and his GF works in the Public Service department I got skrewed...actually...My Child got skrewed!  NCP got a MAJOR break for transportation costs because he fought for all this visitation (he moved btw)....now he only takes DS 1 time per YEAR when he's supposed to have him 1 time a MONTH.  The arrears magically dissapeared and the CS hasn't changed since it was established 9 years ago!!  Things that make you say hummm??

Thankfully, I have taught my children to be fiscally aware and I am able to tell them "Sorry guys, I just can't afford it at this time!"  I have always believed that the system based on "maintaining the current lifestyle" is totally BOGUS!!!  It can't be done in a divorce situation!  To take 1 level of income (that typically barely provides for one household) now has to be split to provide for 2 households....someone's level of lifestyle is gonna be effected.  
Now I'm living....Just another day in Paradise!!


You are spot on with your statements and findings....


Thanks for 30 lines of unsubstantiated opinions.

As soon as you have evidence to establish that argument, feel free to present it.

Why is it that I'm missing the 100 million kids dying in the streets if the system never works?


My proof is in every child support statute and guidlines out there.  How about providing proof of your unsubstantiated opinions.  

How about providing some state statutes or child support guidelines which ensure that the receiver of child support will spend it on the direct expenses of financially support the child.  Also, please provide child support guidelines which have a direct relationship to the actual direct expenses of financially supporting a child.


You asked for evidence to support my position so I submit to you Connecticut statute section 46b-84 which imposes an obligation to pay child support, but contains no requirement that the child support paid be spent on providing for the child's direct expenses.  In addition, the Connecticut statute does not require an accounting of how child support is spent.  Furthermore, the Connecticut child support guidelines uses an income shares model to calculate the child support obligation which completely ignores the actual direct costs of supporting a child.  This means that there is absolutley no relationship between the child support obligation and the actual costs of supporting a child.  The child support guidelines do nothing to ensure that the child will be supported.  An analysis of every other state's laws and guidelines will most likely have the same results.  This is irrefutable proof to support my position that the current child support laws and system does not ensure that the children will be financially supported.  

So far you have not provided any evidence or intelligent argument to refute my positions.  Simply repeating your baseless opinion will do nothing to validate it.  Also, ignoring my positions and hoping they go away will do nothing to support your own baseless opinion.  Unless you can come up with child support laws and guidelines to invalidate my positions, it is checkmate, you lose.


>Thanks for 30 lines of unsubstantiated opinions.
>As soon as you have evidence to establish that argument, feel
>free to present it.

You do not have to substantiate an opinion.  It is what someone thinks.  They own it.  It is never  right or wrong.  You can disagree with it all you want, but they certainly are entitled to it.  They own it.  


None of which supports the allegation that the system is badly broken.

All you've proven is that it's POSSIBLE for a CP to receive money and not spend it on the kids. That has never been in dispute.

What has been in dispute is the allegation that you and others keep making that this is a common occurrence.

YOU are the one arguing that the current system is broken beyond repair - you have the burden to support that claim. The status quo already exists.


OK. So your point is that all the "the system is horribly broken and serves no useful purpose" opinions are completely unsubstantiated by fact.

That's exactly what I've been saying.