Quick Question

[DylansMom2000]

What is the name of your state? North Carolina

I am 21-years-old with a beautiful 3-year-old son. My son's father is 23. Needless to say, we are both young parents, I am a college student graduating in July 2003, and he works an average job to support himself. My son's father also has daughter, for whom he also pays support. He pays $254 per month for support for our child, and pays $100 per month for the support of his daughter. I'm unsure as to why he pays less support for his daughter, it may have something to due with the fact that he once lived with his daughter and her mother--but that is irrelevant anyway. I have always maintained a friendly relationship with my son's father, despite our differences and our decision to live in seperate households. His chief complaint on every visit to see our son is "I'm broke, I have no money after paying bills and child support." He even recently suggested that once I'm out of school that we eliminate the court order and he pay support to me directly, so that he is not completely out of money on pay day. Unfortunately, this arrangement isn't a good idea to me, especially since I know how unpredictable he is, and for the simple fact that I refuse to contact him in attempt to collect his support money. He claims that he earns $8.50 per hour. I'm no expert on child support determination, but based on the above information, would you say that he is able to live comfortably, or is the amount of support he pays out each month just unrealistic? I'm only asking because I'm in no way, shape, or form out to punish him, or make his life miserable, all I expect is that he pay what he is able to each month. We are both young and haven't established our careers yet, but by working together, our son lives comfortably and his provided for well. It's just a curious question...if there is any thought of modifying his support payments, it will be done legally. But is it worth the while? Is he REALLY paying to much, paying an average of $354 between two children--ours, and his daughter?

 

[Bre's_mom]

$354 in general, for two kids is not bad, but on his income, I personally think it's too much.. If he made more money then it wouldnt be so bad, but $354 a month from his check that has taxes coming out, plus rent, food, gas, phone, cable, power, (if he has all that) leaves him with nothing,or possibily behind, and unable to pay some of his bills. I applaud you for being so mature in this matter. There are alot of CP who reem the NCP for everything, and don't care that the other parent can't make ends meet, keep up the good work. I know that (long ago, 10 years ago)when my hubby was making $8.00 per hour he had to pay $220 plus $30 back support(thankfully its all paid up) and the left him barely any money. He couldn't afford an apt. It sucked so bad... Sorry for rambling on and on... I hope you guys can work something out... Good Luck

 

[Lil Miss Smarty Panties]

I assume that the reason he only pays $100 a month for the daughter is because that court order for support was done after yours, so they had to do that order with what he has left after paying support to you.

But I think it sounds about right for what he's making an hour, although maybe just a tad steep. I guess it would depend on how much you make and contribute yourself. You can find a support calculator online and get an estimate after entering both your wages.

 

[DylansMom2000]

Thank you ladies for your replies. I suppose I assumed it illegal for a court system to actually order an NCP to pay more out in child support than what he/she is bringing in, but perhaps that is the case for some families. My son's father has been paying $254 per month for about a year now, intially, the support ordered was $68 per month, which we all know is ridiculous--I was paying more in childcare each week than what he paid in one month! Anyway, I recently moved back in with my mother, as school is extremly demanding right now. I work odd jobs, but manage to support my son with regards to the $254 per month that I recieve from his father. I suppose that we can tough it out until the end of this year, by that time I will have started a new job, and I will not have to depend on his portion as much, and everyone involved should be a little happier! Thanks again for the replies--take care!

 

[VeronicaGia]

I'm glad you're being reasonable.

So you realize, first children come first. Second children come second. In the eyes of our wonderful legal system, the son gets more because the son was born first. The law doesn't always take other children into consideration, and IMHO, it means the law couldn't care less about subsequent families, even though the law claims to care about the children.

Federal law dictates how much can be garnished from his paycheck. Since he is unmarried, it can go up to 65% of his net pay if there are arrearages, leaving him 35% of his net pay on which to live.

 

[djohnson]

8.50 an hour is not alot to live on anyway with or without CS. Technically I don't think it's too high. Here it is figured 21% for 1 child and 32% for 2. He is under the 32% for two kids so I don't think by those guidelines it is too steep but like I said anything is too steep if that is all your making. I think you are doing and handling this very well under the circumstances and I am glad you are thinking of him but he got himself in this position so I could go either way on my personal thinking of it. Legally it's not too much.

 

[DylansMom2000]

I'm glad you're being reasonable.

So you realize, first children come first. Second children come second. In the eyes of our wonderful legal system, the son gets more because the son was born first. The law doesn't always take other children into consideration, and IMHO, it means the law couldn't care less about subsequent families, even though the law claims to care about the children.

Federal law dictates how much can be garnished from his paycheck. Since he is unmarried, it can go up to 65% of his net pay if there are arrearages, leaving him 35% of his net pay on which to live.

Actually, his daughter was born first. My son is younger of the two. However, he was living with the mother of his daughter and their child at the time that my support obligation took effect. He was also ordered to pay support for his daughter, in the amount of $100 per month, and this arrangement was made at the same time my support order was established. Personally, I did not know that parents paid support for children living in the same household, and at the time, I thought it was a scheme on his part, but it was legitimate because the judge actually stated his support obligations at our support modification hearing, in which he said that the NCP would pay $254 per month to me in support, as well as $100 per month for his daughter living in his home. I'll agree, the legal system isn't always the best alternative, which really made me realize that perhaps my son's father is being treated unfairly.

And to djohnson, thanks for the information. However, I think the world of my son, and even though this post may come across as a complaint or major issue, it is not. Thankfully, I do not doubt my ablitiy to care and provide for my son at this time. I would somehow make ends meet--two jobs if I needed to, if the time ever came that I could not. I steer away from the idea that having a child resulted in a "mess," and I'm fortunate enough to be involved with people who will make sure that the children involved do not suffer. I wish that all families felt this way, but I know that this is not the case. NCP is not homeless, does have electricity, clothes on his back, and food to eat. Yes, having children is expensive, and sacrifices must be made, and by this post, I was hoping to gather more information that may or may not justify the fact that NCP is paying out more money than he should in order to live more "comfortably." I absolutely believe that when a child is born between two people that it is their responsibility to make sure that child is nutured and taken care of, and because it was their actions that resulted in that child being brought into this world, then I strongly believe that their needs are most important, at least until that child is of age...and provided that the parent isn't homeless or living in poverty...(I threw that in for those who may try to argue that point!) Anyway, trust me when I say that yes I am thinking of my son's father, but I always make sure our son is taken care of before I worry on anyone else's behalf. Thank you guys for listening...have a great day

 

[DylansMom2000]

****************************************************

 

[Lil Miss Smarty Panties]

Whats the point of him paying support for a kid that lives in his home? Thats pretty senseless. It sounds like fraud to me.

 

[VeeGee]

Dylansmom...I know this is going to sound cold, but your ex's daughter is NOT your problem. That is your ex's problem...and quite frankly, he should have thought about where all this money was going to come from when he was producing babies. Please don't get me wrong...I see your point, and I think your being considerate of him, dispite the circumstances. But $254 per month is not alot of money to care for a 3 yr old. The courts do go by what the NCP makes in earnings and sets a CS amount they feel he can afford. It comes out to be about $63-$64 per wk.

I'm not telling you what to do...but I will remind you of something you may not be thinking of right now. If you go back to court to reduce the CS now, what happens if by chance, in the future, you do not make good money or cannot work for whatever reasons?? What happens if your unable to support your child on your own??? Wouldn't that $254 per month come in handy then? Alot of things can happen and you have to think about that. I tell you this because I have a friend who was in your situation...she really felt bad for the NCP and had the CS reduced. A year later, she lost her job and when she did find another job (which was months later) it was for much less. She couldn't make ends meet, so she took on another job...which left her NO time with her child???

In the meantime...the NCP got himself a wonderful job, making very good money. She asked him to give her more...guess what? He told her to go to hell!!! That's what she got for being so nice and having the CS reduced...she went to court to have it put back where it was to begin with...and the court said NO! So think about what you are doing before you do it. Your first priority is your child, as I can see by reading your post your a good mom. Good luck!

 

[haiku]

i don't understand the 100 determination either , unless it was purely the judges decision and was in some way granted to offset the support he pays your child.

see normally how I understand it. is, it is sometimes possible to get an income reduction based on prior or subsequent children, but normally it is just a percentage removed from your income BEFORE support is ordered.

because you filed before the mother of the first child your second child now comes first, in the eyes of the court. Pretty wild picture for those of us in second marriages LOL.

fair, would be to have your support figured in court using your states gudelines for his and maybe yours (if applicable) incomes. then that amount would be minused from his income BEFORE figuring the percentage for the so called "second" child.

(if he is smart he won't be having a third.......

 

[stone430]

I respect you more than words can say!!! I am married to the father of my child who is 5 months old and prior to us marrying (but while still together) my husband concieved a child with a woman by one night stand that child is 9 months old. he pays $225.00 per month for his son and only $40 was deducted from the original amount of $266.00 to provide for my child. I am not currently working so that I can take care of my child to avoid outstanding day care costs and so that i can go to school and my husband only makes $9.00. unfortunatly it seems that people only think that there should be enouph money for the children to live and be suported and for the fathers in most cases to have nothing! And any children concieved later on have to suffer becuase for whatever reason they always say you knew you had to support the first so you should nto have had the 2nd. I respect you becuas you are willing to work with the father and are thinking of not only your childs well being but of his fathers and most women wouldnt care what happens to the father as long as they get a check in the mail. And what you are doing will make a much better life for your son becuase he wont be affected by conflicts between the 2 of you on who gets money and how much. any way im sorry to have went off on my own thing but I just wanted you to know thats its great that you care about both your exs well being and your sons

 

[karma1]

VeeGee.....

this caught my attention-
"The courts do go by what the NCP makes in earnings and sets a CS amount they feel he can afford".
I don't know, but something just doesn't sit right with me since many, many, many, NCP's pay support above and beyond what they can afford. Unfortunately, the "they" you are referring to, meaning the courts, in many states, are rewarded for assigning support with no regards to equity and therefore, receive interest and monies for their efforts.
(geeze, Ive been on Sparc too long....lol)
JMO

 

[haiku]

considering the percentages used don't really take in the individual considerations of each case, I would say though they can be "fair", it does not always work out that way, once implemented in the real world.

 

[lcollins]

Hey, just think about my ex when you think about and NCP paying out more than they bring home. I know most people here have heard about GA support guidelines being unconsitutional, and I have to agree. My ex earns $8.00/hour and is ordered to pay $50.58 + $10.00(arrears) to ex#1, $60.80 + $12.00(arrears) to me, and $50.00 + $50.00(arrears and other bills) to ex#3 each week. I'll let you all do the math, but this all comes out after taxes. When my ex explained to judge in last contempt hearing (for ex#3, when the 50.00 extra was ordered), that he would be lucky to get $17.00/week to live on, the judge told him he'd better learn to live off $17.00 a week. Now I ask, should this be legal?

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread. Just thought I'd point out how much worse it could be. I think if anything, he should try to do something about the $100 he pays for child that he lives with, instead of the one he doesn't. The ordered amount seems reasonable to me. He should have checked the support guidelines before he started having children. If he works an average job, maybe he should consider getting a 2nd part time job to help himself until he either gets a better paying position, or gets support modified. Sorry to sound callous, but that's life.