I do not agree with the laws!

[audster]

See there's also a problem with the visitation of my step-son. On my husband's days, his mother will keep him with her to babysit his little sister for her or let his dad spend a few hours one day a week with his son. She'll call and tell his son that he HAS to get home.

If he has court ordered visitation, what is the issue? Tell the ex to stick it!!! If it's his parenting time, he is under no obligation to send the kid home. What's she gonna do? Come over and bi**H about it? I could think o fa couple of ways to handle that one.....Criminal Tresspass comes to mind.

Stepmom&mom

It's just not right. Here are what I consider to be legitimate expenditures for a child (though the list may not be exhaustive):

food
clothing
healthcare (medical, dental, vision)
childcare
gasoline used to drive the child to and from the school, doctor, or childcare facility
school activities

I would even question some school activities. Yes, expecting to pay part of field trips or classes that come with extra costs and fees, such as art, home ec and alot of shop and computer courses is reasonable. In my case, I don't so much have an evil, greedy ex as an evil greedy ex's new husband. He has decided that "all children need to be in band" mainly because he was.....Demanded my half af about a $2000 dollar bill (insturment, our school's overly fancy and expensive band uniforms and a trip to play at a Bears game halftime show in Chicago....one of many trips the band has sceduled....). Funny thing though....Daughter didn't want to be in band anyway. I told them where to stick that one.....When I asked the ex about it, she only replied "Well, I know but (huby's name deleted) thinks it best".

 

[LdiJ]

I agree with you that it is his responsibility, however, could you be just a little nicer. I came here trying to get support and people are just bitter. This is an extremely difficult time for me. I was planning a wedding before all this came to light. I think she is taking advantage of him, I really do. I think she wanted to have a child and wanted to know she would be well supported and she will..if it is his. That is still unknown. $1600 a month is our morgage! You do not need that much to raise a kid a month, give me a break!

Decent daycare in NYC can run 1000.00 a month alone...so yeah, in NYC it probably DOES take 1600.00 a month to raise a child.

 

[LdiJ]

Oh no, I understood just fine.....but your splitting hairs. Who cares if your paying the same percentage. The CS should not be modified to reflect the higher income. If it is set, then as far as the courts are concerned, that is the childs percentage of what support it had at the time of the seperation. See, by your logic, the NCP woyuld have no chance to better himself. If CS is perpetually going up to match fathers pay then how could he ever start another family if he so wanted. And spare me the usual "he know he has to pay so he shouldn't get remarried/have another kid....ect". No one bats an eye when CP gets remarried and gets prego to avoid going to work! If the current CS is being met and NCP figures on working a little harder to support the second family, then the AMOUNT should remain static...to h**l with the percentage!

Wow do I disagree with THAT one. What 100.00 a week would pay for today will be VERY different than one 100.00 a week would pay for 15 years from now.

 

[audster]

By that logic, no NPC would ever have a chance at children in his own home. Never be able to better his lifestyle, which, in turn would make the child he is paying support on better.

Consider....NCP pays $300 a month in CS. He works hard, lots of OT, gets remarried and has new child with 2nd wife, all the time maintaining the current CS with no difficulty. Then CP is having no problem, living an average lifestyle, also remarries and has another child. Now she feels she needs to be SAHP but can't really afford it so she gets hair up her a** and files for modification, and is awarded , say $600 a month, based on an increase in earnings, OT....whatever. Now is that entierly fair to NCP? Who is th eone being unreasonable here? No, radical change needs to happen to the laws, leveling the playing field between CP and NCP.

Personally, I think gettign rid of the NO Fault Divorce would be a good start. mandatory 50/50 parenting time with no CS owed would be another. And I tink the Courts need to look a lot more closely at what is going on in the CP's life and finances....CS shouldn't be changed mearly to reflect a change in the CP's household....but it happens all the time.

 

[stealth2]

here's a differenct scenario... NCP pays $300/mo, below guideline which CP agrees to based on his/her current salary. CP is laid off, has trouble finding employment at same income, but does take a job earning what s/he can and is willing to take a second job. In the meantime, NCP has tripled his/her income. Should NCP pay extra based on the circumstances (and - no extra kids in the picture on either side)?

 

[LdiJ]

here's a differenct scenario... NCP pays $300/mo, below guideline which CP agrees to based on his/her current salary. CP is laid off, has trouble finding employment at same income, but does take a job earning what s/he can and is willing to take a second job. In the meantime, NCP has tripled his/her income. Should NCP pay extra based on the circumstances (and - no extra kids in the picture on either side)?

Heck yes the NCP should pay more in that circumstance.

Here is what I think that the REAL problem is in some of these cases. Sometimes the CP doesn't ask for regular increases. Sometimes the CP lets many years go by without asking for an increase.

The ncp lives their life accordingly and ignores the fact that CS could go up at any time because of increases in incomes...and doesn't allow for that in their budget.

Then the CP files for an increase, CS gets raised dramatically and suddenly the NCP is in a bind. Quite frankly that isn't the system's fault, nor can you blame it on the CP. The fact that the CP waited years to request an increase actually saved the ncp a considerable amount of money over those years. To some extent its the NCP's own fault for not taking that into consideration.

However I really don't buy the arguments that an NCP can't "better their lives" because of increases in child support as incomes increase. The increase in CS doesn't take their entire increase in income by any means....it just takes the same percentage. If someone's CS is 20% of gross and their income increases 1000.00 a month then CS is only going to take 20% of that. Federal taxes are alot worse than CS, because their PERCENTAGE increases as income increases.

There are a handful of states where the "system" requires all parents to submit income information on a yearly basis and CS is raised or lowered yearly. That system probably avoids alot of those dramatic surprizes for most people.

 

[Theresia]

Audster, the problem with the visitation schedule is when it was drawn up, it said "reasonable visitation". My husband said he can't understand that if child support is for the child then why he can't he suggest to his attorney that he will buy all of his son's clothes, pay 1/4 (Since she and her new husband and daughter live in the house also)of the ex's electric bill, 1/4 of the water bill and give her $250 a month for food and gas to take him back and forth to his school, three blocks away. He said that when he was divorced ten years ago, that house was damn near paid for already. He meets with his lawyer tomorrow. I told him to see if she has to pay him back for the college fund of his son's that she spent, which was his money. Also, he could have lowered his child support seven years ago when he worked at a different job by $100 a month and she knew this. He would rather pay her the same amount and not deal with her. She threatened him seven years ago and his lawyer said it would've been lowered and that backed her off then, now he's working at another job (alot of lay offs in his field) and so for over seven years she's gotten $8,400 more than she was entitled to up to this point. I told him he was stupid not to have had it lowered, but he said she would've kept his son from him then. Guess what she's doing now?????????

 

[haiku]

OK I am STILL not getting it.

my husband pays 32% of his income. Were the ex take us back to court for more, and it was found we were making more, it would STILL be 32% of his income. Consequentially there would be NO change in the household because it would STILL be the same amount of money coming into our house, as I always allow that 32% when it comes to figuring total household income. I would STILL stay at home/work at home, while raising our child together, in the pretty nice "middle class" lifestyle, I desire.

And someone has yet to explain to me the BIG difference that makes someone going from 100,000.00 a year to 80,800.00 a year, end up living in a cardboard box, getting in line at the soup kitchen? While the ex lives off the 19200.00? cuz I don't see the big deal......

 

[BL1993]

In the case of divorce each kid is entitled to the lifestyle that they would have had --if the parents had stayed together.
That is how child support is based.
Child supports asks me to list out every detail that is needed to live each month.
The income of both parents are considered at the time of the divorce.
What was suitable during the marriage should be acceptable afterwards.
How the parents make their lives work is different since they decided they could not make it work.
Lets talk about parents need
I am sure you need a car--but really a second hand car will do so you really don't need a newer car.
Good luck keeping it in good repair.
I am glad you slept outside while your kids slept inside and I hope you are willing to continue to feel that way --so the kids will always be first
Learn to cut your own hair.
You do not need a break from your kids so forgo date night and let the kids head over to a friends house.
Homemade gifts are still acceptable--learn to be crafty. Everyone will apprecicate that.
I could go on but see my point and realize child support may be different for each kid just as it is for each career and marriage.
Keep this in mind for both parents really --because after all your heart really is with the kids and not that other spouse or ex is it?

_________________________________________________________________
Except that nobody would dream that the $800 dollars a month on two children in child support is what was provided when they were married! It is crap that it is about maintaining the lifestyle of which they were used to. What is worse is when CP moans and groans endlessly over the $800 per month, telling the kids that it doesn't even cover their grocery bill... Who said it was supposed to cover their 'family' grocery bill? I thought it was 'child' support?

Why do these CP's think that this is just about 'need' and 'right'? We all know darn well that child support is high because if it weren't then many, many children would be living in poverty... why? because women continue to leave it to the male population to earn the better living.. Women should be ashamed to be in a category that puts the government in a position to get the 'dole' from the ex-husband in leu of the welfare system. Where money can be had and ordered it will be to insure that the children don't end up in poverty. Sad for the female population. What gets me is when they come off with this idea that all is fair. Yea, right. They certainly shouldn't be proud, but usually they are the ones yelling, "look at what I do for them". Why are they so afraid to share custody or give custody to a NCP? Why won't they send the child support to the NCP during extended vacation if indeed it is to support the 'needs' of the child? I could go on, but I'll stop there.

By the way, I am a mother of two. I recieve $100 per month from my ex. It's all he can afford. The kids are happy and would never know that their Dad doesn't PAY ENOUGH... I don't whine to them and tell them I do it all either. We chose to figure out what worked for the 'kids'. They have all of their needs met.... most important their need to be in a family where they know they are loved and supported by 'Both' natural parents. They also know they have two wonderful, 'bonus' parents... their step-parents.

 

[Whyte Noise]

I just love the "it's to keep the children in the lifestyle they were used to before the divorce" logic.

OK... let's use that logic on my own case.

I was a SAHM for the last part of my marriage. We had 3 children. My ex was the sole bread-winner for our family. My ex also received custody of the children. I was ordered to pay child support.

Now... I wasn't working DURING the marriage, my ex was. He provided everything for the family. When we divorced, he had custody so he was STILL providing everything for the children. So... why was I ordered to pay CS? That wouldn't be "keeping the children in the lifestyle they were used to before the divorce". The lifestyle they were used to was only HIM having an income before the divorce and us adjusting our expenses to fit that income. So, using the "same lifestyle" logic, shouldn't it have STILL been only him having to support the children after the divorce as well? That would be the same lifestyle, correct?

See how stupid that sounds? But yet... using the above logic, it's truth. He was the only source of income before the divorce, so why shouldn't he still be the only source after? *shrugs* Kinda throws that "same lifestyle" theory out the window.

One thing that gets me about the whole CS issue is this:

If you're on state assistance they only pay a maximum per child in each state. Let's say, it's $330 a month worth of welfare benefit. The state says that's what it costs (according to THEIR math) to raise a child, and that's all they give you a month. Now, we all know it does cost more than that to provide for your child, but I'm using it as an example. Yet... in a child support proceeding the court (state) says it costs $700 a month to raise that same child. How come the state says it's one thing when THEY are footing the bill, and yet it's twice that amount when a parent is? Shouldn't it be one figure for both? Yes, I know all about the semantics of it being the taxpayers paying the welfare benefit, that's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about the state saying it takes "X" amount to raise a child when it's the state's money being used, and then the court (state) saying it's a different amount when someone elses money is being used. Why isn't there just ONE uniform amount?

 

[haiku]

yes, but aren't welfare payments low, based on the assumption that a persons living standards, if they are on welfare, are low?

After all, if you accept full welfare in most states, you have to give up most of your assets. Even your full child support amount, to the state.

Even as a child support payer (by being married to my husband) I cannot grasp the "fairness" of the guy who bagged my McDonalds order, paying the same for his kids, as my nuerosurgeon, pays for his. (or my mine for that matter)

I don't think my husband owes the ex a DIME more than what he is legally paying her. After the support is paid, the obligation to his childrens household is done for the month, and both households live accordingly. I have no sympathy for not being able to budget.

All my kids play team and individual sports, thats what we can afford.something the "mcdonalds bagger" cannot do with his kids, because his income level cannot afford to. My kids do not play hockey, like the 'nuerosurgeons' kids do, because thats what they afford. IF my husbands ex wants them to play hockey, she can either become a nuerosurgeon, or marry one, but my husbands lifestyle before would have barely covered ice fees, and now after we certainly cannot be expected to.

there is really no way to have the EXACT same lifestyle, something has to give when a household splits in two. A perfect example is your case MG, say your ex may still be the main breadwinner, but now the kids who live with him likely need or needed daycare, a NEW expense, caused by divorce, so somehow the 2 of you would need to pay for that, taking from the former lifestyles largesse.

but I do think, it should still be based on parental income and not JUST on basic needs, because needs are subjective to income level.

 

[audster]

Ummmm.....NO! WANTS are subjective to income levels......needs are needs and barring individual medical problems (my oldest daughter is type 1 diabetic, as am I) , universal:food, clothes, education, medical care. Everything else the CP would have to provide for herself anyway!

 

[haiku]

even basic needs have income levels........

ALL of us could live in the same basic welfarite housing, wear the same basic welfarite clothing, all go to the same public welfarite school, and eat the same welfarite rations.

The ONLY thing I think should be the same over all income lines, is Medical care, but thats a whole other debate......

 

[stepmom&mom]

I've always been sort of annoyed by the idea that if one parent receives an increase in pay or gets an education and gets a better job that it means that the other parent should have a share in that. If they wanted a share, shouldn't they have stayed together. I know that some will say that it is for the children, but if this is true, why doesn't the CP allow the children to live with the NCP if they want it to be that way? Why? Because the truth is, it is the parent that really wants a slice of the pay. The cost to raise a child shouldn't change based upon the financial status of the parents. When a couple is married and has a child together, no one tells them that they are required to spend a specified sum on the children. They make that decision themselves and if they do decide to spend more, then that is a decision that should be made by them. Extras are called extras because they are extras! They are not required expenses. If a father pays $600/month for child support and then gets a job making $250,000/yr, his child support doesn't need to go up to $1500/month. It's not as if all of a sudden the childs needs have changed. That's ridiculous. If the CP suddenly made alot of money, due to a new job, no court would say that this means that the NCP doesn't need to pay child support anymore.

Shawna

 

[stealth2]

If the CP suddenly made alot of money, due to a new job, no court would say that this means that the NCP doesn't need to pay child support anymore.

Shawna

The NCP could, however, file for a downward modification based on the CP's income increase.