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?

[olanna]

[mistoffolees]

Of course, you started with a very biased position.

"no matter what, the CP's lifestyle should be maintained for the sake of the children" doesn't even come close to representing what I said. Nor does your top choice "the system works well is 100% accurate" represent my position. Furthermore, the smattering of reponses you get is not representative of the population as a whole - since people who post here are far more likely to be ones having a problem.

Yet, even with your blatant attempt to bias the results with your statement AND with the known fact that people with an axe to grind are far more likely to respond to polls like this, you're still wrong. Even on your biased test, less than half of respondents say that the system doesn't work at all - not the 90% you claim.

[olanna]

Give it time! Polls take more than a day or two...

Here are some of your replies...

"Not automatically, but when circumstances change you are free to request a change.

But I'm not sure that support SHOULD drop. Child support is recognition that children are the responsiblity of both parents and that the children should receive a reasonable amount of support. If they move to an area that's cheaper, it simply allows them to live better - and I don't think that's inherently wrong."

"But even that is a moot point. If you have kids, it's your responsibility to support them. If you had kids and were raising them at a reasonable middle-class level, divorce should not be an excuse to plunge them into near poverty living if you can afford to support them reasonably well."

[MixedBag]

don't you think?

[ocean]

I am/have been on both sides of the fence....
I do not think that the system is fair. Some of my reasons:

*Child support should be a federal law. There is so many differences between the states and people tend to move. Why should a kid in NY get supported until 21 (or 22 if still finishing college) and then in another state a child gets supported until 18?

*I AGREE with the way my state says that if my ex has more kids it does NOT affect the child support for our children. He knew his responsibilities BEFORE having more BUT some states the child support lowers for the first children.

*If NCP is on-time with payments it should NOT be on their credit report. I agree it should go if there is non-payment.

*In my state child support is calculated by percentage taking in NO account of how much time NCP spends with their child. SO if we have Skids almost half the month, no credit is given. (Some states do have this.....this is why it should be at the federal level)

*The system works to an extent but there are MANY issues with it. Especially when there are orders with two states involved.

*Children need to be supported by BOTH parents and when a divorce situation happens, it falls to the NCP. Who is collecting from the CP and making sure that their money is being spent on the child? I am not really taking about accountability by the state but the CP is responsible too for the buying the basics.

I do not agree that is has to be up to the same standards as the marriage was. Hard times comes up in families. Kids need to have their basics covered in both houses. Just because I get $$ every month for them does not mean they have cell phones.

We have debated a lot of the above issues and you will not please everyone but there are a lot of issues with it and MANY people have had crazy situations that takes years to fix through the state's CSE and the courts....

[olanna]

You can only vote once on each board, meaning if you visit both boards you get to vote two times, but each board is going to represent only one vote. Some people only visit particular boards, so I posted it on the two boards I felt were most inclined for discussions such as this.

For a long time, I only visited one board and never even looked at the others.  I am sure there are many that do the same, as some very different reasons bring us here...but the most common are outrageous CS orders and fighting for the right to see the kids.  

[Davy]

... there the is no CRIMINALIZATION  should a SM CP lose her job and can not help provide her portion of support to the children.   No hounding by CSE, no court appearances, no lost of driving privileges, no jail time, etc.  

... SHE will be ENTITLED to government assistance and social services.  

[mistoffolees]

As would a male CP.

[Davy]

...  no CRIMINALIZATION should a SM CP lose her job and can not help provide her portion of support to the children. No hounding by CSE, no court appearances, no lost of driving privileges, no jail time, etc.

The 'system' you love and defend so much is designed without accountability to children or any one so ... no crime.

How does this scenario benefit children ??  

[mistoffolees]

I never said that I love the system. I am simply opposed to the concept that the system NEVER works (look at the number of people who said that the system never works. Since I and several others have stated that the system works in our case, then the people who are claiming that the system never works are either so blinded by their own experience or unwilling to consider any facts).

The system is not perfect. But it is designed to ensure that children are supported and that parents get to see their kids. Far more often than not, it does provide that.

Can it be improved? Sure. But even if it were to be scrapped, I see that no one has yet provided any proposal for a better system. It's easy to say that a system is no good. It's much harder to prove that it is AND to come up with an alternative - and no one here has done either of those things.

Here, let me show you how it's done:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/assessing-CS-debt/execsum.htm

Just a few facts from this study:
-89% of child support obligations are being paid on time in CA.

-Of the 11% of obligations that are in arrears, 15% are erroneous (the parent doesn't owe anything). 11% of the 11% account for more than half of the arrears - which means that a very small number (1.2% of the total child support obligations) parents owe more than $30 K in arrears.

-57% of obligors owed less than $5 K in arrears.

-Only 22% of the obligors (2.4% of the entire population) had low or no income - but the study was unable to verify that all of them truly had low income since it had no mechanism to look for unreported income.

Yes, the system has problems. But the stuff you're complaining about is NOT that common. More importantly, if you stop worrying about yourself and think about the kids for a change, you'd see that 89% of the time, the system is doing what it's supposed to.

Oh, and I'd be interested in your explanation of how child support payments are going to improve if there are no penalties like loss of driving privileges, court appearances, 'hounding' by CSE, etc for not paying your child support. Even a moment's thought would say that the only thing this could do is reduce the number of children being supported.