Support Order Change

[LdiJ]

Statistically speaking, even today, how many children are in the primary physical custody of their mothers vs their fathers?

I could believe that the MUCH, MUCH smaller % of fathers that have primary custody receive lower monetary orders of support from the NCP mother. Could this PERHAPS have something to do with the fact that, as a group average, men EARN more than women in the US?

Not to deny the some of the patriarchal, patronizing MALE judges in the family court system may show more sympathy for the "poor" woman. Which is actually an insult to women overall.

It has been said repeatedly in this forum that if a parent wants to NOT pay support, they will generally get away with it. I think that is true regardless of gender. I know for a fact that ex did not pay a penny in support for over 9 years. And, he suffered absolutely no consequences by ANY judge in the numerous court appearances over those years.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. A parent who is determined not to pay, won't....even if it destroys their credit scores and ruins their opportunities to collect SS retirement benefits. Heck, the most determined of them have no problem with going to jail over it.

I also know that a single parent with other small kids at home is less likely to get "hit" than a married parent with other kids at home. I personally know a dad (brother of a friend) who has successfully avoided paying child support for years because he is a low income custodial father of other children. Its wrong, but he is collecting welfare for the 4 kids in his custody...and has gotten away scott free on his arreages and support for his oldest.

I suspect that it will eventually come back to haunt him, when the other 4 are grown....but for now he is getting a "pass". He does work full time, but qualifies for the full spectrum of welfare for the 4 in his custody.

 

[GrowUp!]

Statistically speaking, even today, how many children are in the primary physical custody of their mothers vs their fathers?

I could believe that the MUCH, MUCH smaller % of fathers that have primary custody receive lower monetary orders of support from the NCP mother. Could this PERHAPS have something to do with the fact that, as a group average, men EARN more than women in the US?

Not to deny the some of the patriarchal, patronizing MALE judges in the family court system may show more sympathy for the "poor" woman. Which is actually an insult to women overall.

I couldn't agree more as your last sentence summed it up. For as much as women push for equality in the workplace (equal pay, etc.), it surprises me to no end (well, actually it doesn't) the amount of women who come to this forum and are "OK" with being imputed a minimum wage salary because they choose to be a stay at home parent or they simply didn't care to better themselves professionally with the cornucopia of excuses/reasons. And/or they decided to have more kids before they were even able to financially suppor the ones they already had. Good thing that attitude is quickly changing for many women who are looking out for THEMSELVES before settling down.

Not that there is nothing wrong with being a stay-at-home parent, but they are also quick to turnaround and say "it is a full-time job." I agree. It is. So let's impute a $20k-25k/year salary onto you for that full-time job of being a SAH parent.

Oh that's a problem now because that would mean less $$$ every month in support. There are too many women who hurt themselves. And they are the ones who come on here in similar situations.

 

[LdiJ]

I couldn't agree more as your last sentence summed it up. For as much as women push for equality in the workplace (equal pay, etc.), it surprises me to no end (well, actually it doesn't) the amount of women who come to this forum and are "OK" with being imputed a minimum wage salary because they choose to be a stay at home parent or they simply didn't care to better themselves professionally with the cornucopia of excuses/reasons. And/or they decided to have more kids before they were even able to financially suppor the ones they already had. Good thing that attitude is quickly changing for many women who are looking out for THEMSELVES before settling down.

Not that there is nothing wrong with being a stay-at-home parent, but they are also quick to turnaround and say "it is a full-time job." I agree. It is. So let's impute a $20k-25k/year salary onto you for that full-time job of being a SAH parent.

Oh that's a problem now because that would mean less $$$ every month in support. There are too many women who hurt themselves. And they are the ones who come on here in similar situations.

I think its totally fair to impute a stay at home parent with the amount that they realistically could be earning if they were working full time. However, in that instance I think that daycare costs should also be imputed. Because if they were working, there WOULD be daycare costs.

I also think that in some instances (because I have played with the numbers) even the ncp is sometimes better off if the other parent isn't working. Sometimes the cost of daycare (if multiple kids are involved) would be significantly higher than the savings in child support.

Example: Someone might pay 600.00 a month for two kids with a cp not working (and either with minimum wage imputed or nothing at all) and 400.00 a month if the cp is working. However, if the cp really works, then that's 200.00 a week for daycare, and the ncp's half (or higher percentage) would put the ncp at paying at least 800.00 a month total between cs and daycare.

So sometimes, its really cheaper for the ncp if the cp isn't working. I always think that people should run the numbers on online calculators before they get too upset.

 

[Susie3q]

I did run the numbers....

Ldij, I am currently a SAHM with 2 children under 3 years old. A little over a year ago, my stbx and I sat down and realized that he was paying me to work after the cost of daycare, miliege and maintenance and gas for my car, my lunch, business clothes, and "picking up dinner on the way home when I had to work late." We were going in the hole as much as $100.00 per week and I was making $15.00 / hour. Now we are separated and I checked the SC Child support calculator. As far as I can determine, it lookes like stbx/ncp will have to pay only $547 if I continue not to work, but will be ordered to pay $900 if I go back to work.... Now, from my side, I have to decide is it worth it to give up going back to work until the baby is three and get by on a shoestring income or should I go back to work??? I am probably going back to work in June when the baby is 2 and the other is 3. I also have come to realize that staying home with 2 children under 3 is a lot harder than working for a living. No one is spilling juice on the floor when I'm at work, no one is stuffing cheerios in the couch for me to vacuum out and no one is wiping poopie dipers on the wall when they are supposed to be taking a anap when I'm at work.... Anyone that thinks a stay at home mom's job is being lazy is just wrong. It's a sacrafice of money and a lot of work in which we get the benefit of being there to shape our young childrens lives. You know the years from 0 to 5 determine who a person is going to be (the opinion of almost every psycologist and psychiatrist).

Anyways, this is in no way legal advise, just a real life situation in which I have indeed ran the numbers.

Susie