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]

Thanks Davy.  That has been my point through the entire discussion. Having the government involved in our personal affairs is inappropriate.  The courts promote a huge disconnect by offering up large money awards to a party that is already angry and upset.  And all in the name of children.  And as with my wife in law, the income she receives in the form of alimony, is double taxed.  He pays taxes on it, she gets a percentage of his gross and then she pays taxes on that money as well.  Yes, he gets to use it as a deduction..but that is far from a tax credit.  

I want the government out of my life, as its already too involved as it is.  

[Ref]

Giggles,

My point was not directed at you. I just wanted to say that NCP shouldn't be responsible for 100% of the financial burden despite what some people believe.

I understand that you don't feel that way and I am sorry if it came across as me pointing this out directly to you. It really was more for some others who might not understand.

Best wishes,
Ref

[Kitty C.]

Besides the point that I have a serious problem with 'maintaining a certain lifestyle' when incomes supporting it are drastically changed, I fail to see how it could be remotely possible to even attempt it, when the costs DOUBLE on maintaining TWO homes (CP's and NCP's), when there was only one before.

When couples split/divorce, they live in separate homes, instead of one.  So you have double the cost of everything that entails.  Given that, there is no way possible that 'maintaining the lifestyle the child was accustomed to' can be accomplished, unless both parents miraculously get large pay raises or new jobs with significantly larger wages.

So how can a parent afford to support his/her child financially in the same manner when he/she is now responsible for 100% of housing and related costs, compared to only 50% before (if both parents were equally contributing to the family prior to separation)?  Math isn't my strong suit, but that still doesn't add up for me..........

[Kitty C.]

.....my computer's acting up...........

[Kitty C.]

.....

[Kitty C.]

....

[Giggles]

I was agreeing with you...I have been on this board for many years and I have heard many people complain on how the CS they get barely covers the childs costs...ummm HELLO...CS is only supposed to be a PORTION of the child's costs, the CP is SUPPOSED to pay some as well...some just don't get the fact that they too are responsible for some of the costs as well.

I have a friend here at work who's BF is going through a nasty custody battle.  The BM in his case is getting over $2000 a month in CS for 3 kids and claims that she can't afford to buy them anything...it really makes me sick!!!

Honestly...I wish I got a little bit more in CS and according to the calculators I should be getting more...but that's beside the point.  The $275 I get really doesn't go far and I feel bad having to tell my son I just can't afford for him to do certain things.  He really wanted to join Tae Kwan Do but it would have cost $125 start up and $50 a month...there was just no way.  I did ask his Dad if he would split the cost with me....he of course said no way :-(  Meanwhile he's driving new cars, just bought a house and the only reason the CS is set so low is because it's an interstate CS order and his GF works for the court that set it...oh well.

[olanna]

One couple I know "shared" the house with the kids.  Think really hard about that...

One week, Dad stayed at the house. The next week, Mom stayed at the house.  They rented a room from someone that they shared when they weren't with the kids.

Now, it worked for them.  But I can't imagine doing that with say, ex number 1.

And they did it to maintain the lifestyles of the children with the least amount of impact on them.  It worked pretty well.  But the parents had NO life of their own.

[mistoffolees]

>Besides the point that I have a serious problem with
>'maintaining a certain lifestyle' when incomes supporting it
>are drastically changed, I fail to see how it could be
>remotely possible to even attempt it, when the costs DOUBLE on
>maintaining TWO homes (CP's and NCP's), when there was only
>one before.
>
>When couples split/divorce, they live in separate homes,
>instead of one.  So you have double the cost of everything
>that entails.  Given that, there is no way possible that
>'maintaining the lifestyle the child was accustomed to' can be
>accomplished, unless both parents miraculously get large pay
>raises or new jobs with significantly larger wages.
>
>So how can a parent afford to support his/her child
>financially in the same manner when he/she is now responsible
>for 100% of housing and related costs, compared to only 50%
>before (if both parents were equally contributing to the
>family prior to separation)?  Math isn't my strong suit, but
>that still doesn't add up for me..........

Depends on the circumstances.

In my case, we had plenty of discretionary income and will have less left to splurge now. In addition, ex was not working before and is working now.

The point is that if you have a kid used to a certain lifestyle, using bare subsistence level to calculate support isn't fair to the kid. Whether you can maintain exactly the same lifestyle or not, it doesn't make sense to plunge the kid into near poverty simply because NCP figures that you can live on $27.12 per month.

[mistoffolees]

>
>.... YES and will WORK BETTER with out government
>involvement.
>


In your opinion.

In the real world, lots of people don't do anything without the government enforcing it. It's just absolutely implausible that people would be paying MORE support if the government didn't set support levels.

Given the number of NCPs here complaining about paying support, I would venture that without the government enforcing support, things would be far worse than they are now, not better.