-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
- Status
1) Depends. I inhiereited a house and my CS raised briefly becuase she could prove that I had no lodging expenses, besides Property taxes and house Insurance....I teventually got lowered again with a different judge, but the fact that I had to pay more because cost of living was less, despite no change in income was BS. Thsi is effectivly the same thing! What the law says is not nessicarily what happens in Family Court!
2) No. If CP an no longer maintain a life for child, can't afford child without raising support, then custody should transfer to NCP who can! Period!
2) No. If CP an no longer maintain a life for child, can't afford child without raising support, then custody should transfer to NCP who can! Period!
stepmom&mom
Member
Stealth~
Yes, the NCP could have it lowered, but they will still be required to contribute. No one can seriously say that if a father has to pay a few thousand a month in CS because he has a large income that the CP is just paying their fair portion. The truth is they are contributing nothing, and, if anything, they are making income off of the increased CS!
Shawna
Yes, the NCP could have it lowered, but they will still be required to contribute. No one can seriously say that if a father has to pay a few thousand a month in CS because he has a large income that the CP is just paying their fair portion. The truth is they are contributing nothing, and, if anything, they are making income off of the increased CS!
Shawna
lifestyle vs needs
I am constantly hearing that the CP and NCP's lifestyle is at stake and not the children.
When I got divorced it was because of physical violence. I will not stayed married to anyone for that and furthermore I don't think kids should be involved with a person that is violent. I am not sure what we are teaching them in that style of parenting.
I never did deny my ex his right to see his kids. Thankfully he was enought of a jerk that he walk away from them on his own.
We agreed when the children were born that they would go to private school if we stayed in Florida. I stayed in Florida and I put them in private school. My ex fled then scene and was hiding for years.
We also agreed that I would go back to school so rehab alimony was given.
I never got that. He was suppose to provide medical insurance. My kids never got that.
Lifestyle--needs--increase--if they were in the NCP's house I am sure they would received lots of extra items to keep them happy but because they are with the CP--they deserve less! I really question who anyone is concerned with.
I know my ex is making double what he did before and frankly I would just like to see him pay for his support. He is lousey with money and has never wanted to pay his debts. Bills followed me for over a year from his dentist etc. My car was repossessed when we were together. My house was forclosed on (while he was assuring me that all bills were being paid).
I know if I was not in the picture and the check didn't go to me, he would spend and over spend and never pay debts but still spend more on his kids.
It is too bad the NCP can't look past that EX for the kids sake.
I am constantly hearing that the CP and NCP's lifestyle is at stake and not the children.
When I got divorced it was because of physical violence. I will not stayed married to anyone for that and furthermore I don't think kids should be involved with a person that is violent. I am not sure what we are teaching them in that style of parenting.
I never did deny my ex his right to see his kids. Thankfully he was enought of a jerk that he walk away from them on his own.
We agreed when the children were born that they would go to private school if we stayed in Florida. I stayed in Florida and I put them in private school. My ex fled then scene and was hiding for years.
We also agreed that I would go back to school so rehab alimony was given.
I never got that. He was suppose to provide medical insurance. My kids never got that.
Lifestyle--needs--increase--if they were in the NCP's house I am sure they would received lots of extra items to keep them happy but because they are with the CP--they deserve less! I really question who anyone is concerned with.
I know my ex is making double what he did before and frankly I would just like to see him pay for his support. He is lousey with money and has never wanted to pay his debts. Bills followed me for over a year from his dentist etc. My car was repossessed when we were together. My house was forclosed on (while he was assuring me that all bills were being paid).
I know if I was not in the picture and the check didn't go to me, he would spend and over spend and never pay debts but still spend more on his kids.
It is too bad the NCP can't look past that EX for the kids sake.
stepmom&mom
Member
Haiku,
I never stated in my post that the NCP shouldn't have to contribute anything. I said that their contribution shouldn't suddenly triple (and that the cost to raise the children doesn't suddenly triple) just because the NCP gets a better job.
Shawna
I never stated in my post that the NCP shouldn't have to contribute anything. I said that their contribution shouldn't suddenly triple (and that the cost to raise the children doesn't suddenly triple) just because the NCP gets a better job.
Shawna
no$$4us said:
This is a perfect example of why "the kids deserve the lifestyle they had when we were married" does not really fly....
As my husband said to his ex, when she said it to him-"what? maxed out credit cards, threatened reposessions, and bill collectors on the phone all the time?"
Sometimes divorce, with forced budgeting, and a slightly lower standard of living IS the best option.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Missing the Point!!!
yes it should be the responsibility of both parents to make sure the kids have decent lifestyle.......;the keyword here is decent....NOT EXTRAVAGANT!
FOOD! CLOTHING! MEDICAL NEEDS! That is all the CS should be for! Everything else the CP would have to provide for herself anyway!
Missing the Point!!!
yes it should be the responsibility of both parents to make sure the kids have decent lifestyle.......;the keyword here is decent....NOT EXTRAVAGANT!
FOOD! CLOTHING! MEDICAL NEEDS! That is all the CS should be for! Everything else the CP would have to provide for herself anyway!
lifestyle
We used to live in WI. I had a job and he had a job. I told him to get an extra job when he kept writing bad checks so he did.
He took a job in Florida without consulting me first. He called home and said I took the job. I told him to say no. I was 6 months preg. I had to quit my job and he quit his second job.
We moved and he had already also bought a house without first consulting me.
He said we had the money to cover new budget. WRONG.
He is still at a huge loss in finances.
I had paid cash for my last 3 cars. I had no credit debt. After leaving marriage. I agreed to take half the debt with no job and 2 kids.
I paid my debt and his followed and haunted me. I did pay some of that too.
I never wrote bad checks, I put the kids first (private school) and moved on with my life.
He was found and began the harassment again 10 years later.
I found he has 2 warrants for arrest for beating another girl, he now has domestic violence order against him from me and is again not paying since he closed my case in Florida and did not properly register in NC. Until that happens I am S O L.
We used to live in WI. I had a job and he had a job. I told him to get an extra job when he kept writing bad checks so he did.
He took a job in Florida without consulting me first. He called home and said I took the job. I told him to say no. I was 6 months preg. I had to quit my job and he quit his second job.
We moved and he had already also bought a house without first consulting me.
He said we had the money to cover new budget. WRONG.
He is still at a huge loss in finances.
I had paid cash for my last 3 cars. I had no credit debt. After leaving marriage. I agreed to take half the debt with no job and 2 kids.
I paid my debt and his followed and haunted me. I did pay some of that too.
I never wrote bad checks, I put the kids first (private school) and moved on with my life.
He was found and began the harassment again 10 years later.
I found he has 2 warrants for arrest for beating another girl, he now has domestic violence order against him from me and is again not paying since he closed my case in Florida and did not properly register in NC. Until that happens I am S O L.
stepmom&mom said:
but why shouldnt it? A percentage of income is a percentage of income.
And no, basic cost to raise children does not change, but as our incomes go up so do our expectations, and what we actually consider a need to be. the increase in income will be spent in some form on the household, and that includes your children who do not live with you.
If we are looking at support orders as a "neccessary evil" I do not think all families are created equal. In an ideal world, no divorced couples would squabble over support, because thier would never be a question kids needs were being met, based on the lifestyles each parent leads.
The fact that NCP's have no control over the way the decision to spend that money, once it enters the CP's home is I think, the REAL problem here.
stepmom&mom
Member
Haiku~
Ok. We may actually be referring to two separate things here. I know that the rules for child support vary from state to state. In Oklahoma, which is where I live, the amount of money that it takes to support a child is a standard amount based upon age. This does not vary based upon the income of the parents. The only thing the parents income determines is what percentage of that amount each parent will pay. In other states, the amount of money that it requires to support a child varies dependent upon the income of the parents. To me, this is silly. It's as if we are stating that the child whose parents aren't doctors and lawyers don't deserve the same amount of support as the children of wealthy parents. I believe that is morally and socially wrong. The amount of support a child needs (meaning the total amount, not the parents percentage) shouldn't increase just because the parent makes more money (although their percentage of the total amount may increase.) You see the difference?
Shawna
Ok. We may actually be referring to two separate things here. I know that the rules for child support vary from state to state. In Oklahoma, which is where I live, the amount of money that it takes to support a child is a standard amount based upon age. This does not vary based upon the income of the parents. The only thing the parents income determines is what percentage of that amount each parent will pay. In other states, the amount of money that it requires to support a child varies dependent upon the income of the parents. To me, this is silly. It's as if we are stating that the child whose parents aren't doctors and lawyers don't deserve the same amount of support as the children of wealthy parents. I believe that is morally and socially wrong. The amount of support a child needs (meaning the total amount, not the parents percentage) shouldn't increase just because the parent makes more money (although their percentage of the total amount may increase.) You see the difference?
Shawna
stepmom&mom
Member
Haiku~
What we are trying to say is that just because the neurosurgeons opinion of what their kids "needs" are varies from the McDonalds's worker's kids doesn't mean that the McDonald's workers kids deserve less.
Shawna
What we are trying to say is that just because the neurosurgeons opinion of what their kids "needs" are varies from the McDonalds's worker's kids doesn't mean that the McDonald's workers kids deserve less.
Shawna
- Status