# More child support chat.



## southbound

People speak often about how the child support system doesn’t work right, and it usually is on the side of the one receiving the support. However, I would like to run my situation by you and just see if it seems great. I’m a big boy, so I’m not crying myself to sleep at night over it, and she and I are not arguing at all, but here goes.

My x wife and I got divorced about 4 years ago simply because she wasn’t happy. I’m paying a nice little check each month. She got married in April, and apparently the guy is well off. They’ve purchased more stuff in the last few months than most get in several years. 

I know that doesn’t erase my financial responsibility toward my kids, but I’m not some dad who sees them once in a blue moon and never pays anything else. We live close, and I see them a lot, and I buy a lot of needs and recreation for them. It’s obvious she no longer “needs” my check for her electric bill, clothes, and groceries, but I’m sure it’s nice bonus to have it come in every month.

I realize a 16 year old isn’t exactly a decision maker, but my daughter was even stunned. When they got married, my daughter said, “Well dad, I don’t know how much you were paying, but at least you won’t have to do that anymore.” I told her that I would and she was shocked and even a bit angry. She said, “Dad, you buy us more stuff than mom does, what sense does that make.”

Forget about technicalities, does this situation really make a lot of sense?


----------



## Hardtohandle

I am pretty sure child support is based on both incomes and adjusted accordingly.. At least in NYC it is..

So her being married means her income has increased.. Which means you could get a reduction..


----------



## southbound

Hardtohandle said:


> I am pretty sure child support is based on both incomes and adjusted accordingly.. At least in NYC it is..
> 
> So her being married means her income has increased.. Which means you could get a reduction..


I think only the parents incomes are considered here in KY.


----------



## lenzi

Hardtohandle said:


> I am pretty sure child support is based on both incomes and adjusted accordingly.. At least in NYC it is..
> 
> So her being married means her income has increased.. Which means you could get a reduction..


Wrong. 

I'm in NY and I'm quite familiar with the divorce laws.

Child support is calculated as a percentage of the noncustodial parents income. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the custodial parents income or marital status.

It may be possible to get an adjustment in _spousal support_ in situations such as this, but that's another matter entirely.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: More child support chat.*



lenzi said:


> Wrong.
> 
> I'm in NY and I'm quite familiar with the divorce laws.
> 
> Child support is calculated as a percentage of the noncustodial parents income. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the custodial parents income or marital status.
> 
> It may be possible to get an adjustment in _spousal support_ in situations such as this, but that's another matter entirely.


What about in a shared custody situation (I think SB is not in that situation though) but im curious what they do there since I'm in a similar predicament as him but have shared custody, used the differential method, but she remarried, increased her income level and is now pregnant and about to go on maternity leave, I expect she will remain sahm after mat leave, since her H earns a lot more than i ever have, and I'm trying to determine when to request an adjustment to my CS payment. I think now is the time...


----------



## Holland

It is not the step parents role to support your kids, child support should not change just because the other parent remarries.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: More child support chat.*



Holland said:


> It is not the step parents role to support your kids, child support should not change just because the other parent remarries.


My child support, since I'm in a shared custody situation, is based on what I would pay if she had full custody, less what she would pay if I had full custody, the difference going to the one with lesser income.

When she remarried she no longer needs an income since she's being supported financially by her new man. So by your logic, her remarriage (though it automatically puts her standard of living higher than before, thus the standard of living for my child at that home too) means I would technically be responsible to pay even higher amount to her despite my income not increasing... Its the opposite of fair, unless you compare numbers using something other than actual received earnings. But courts only go by what is quantified.


----------



## Pluto2

In NY, the courts tend to only consider the step-parent's income if the child is receiving or at risk of receiving public assistance. Step-parent funds also comes into play for support issues if the non-custodial parent doesn't pay and the courts will attack a tax refund, even if part of the income was earned by a step-parent. 
If there is a huge disparity, such as the custodial parent is now living in a seven-figure household, while the non-custodial parent is struggling your might be able to get a reduction based on the equities, but that is a long shot. Sorry.


----------



## southbound

Holland said:


> It is not the step parents role to support your kids, child support should not change just because the other parent remarries.


That's the current "technical" side of the situation. l'll make the example a little more extreme. Let's say the woman receiving child support marries a millionaire, while the father paying it has a very meager existence. I'm just asking if that makes sense. It doesn't to me. 

And, let's say the father is buying the kids what they need. It's obvious the mother would no longer "need" the money from him.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: More child support chat.*



Pluto2 said:


> In NY, the courts tend to only consider the step-parent's income if the child is receiving or at risk of receiving public assistance. Step-parent funds also comes into play for support issues if the non-custodial parent doesn't pay and the courts will attack a tax refund, even if part of the income was earned by a step-parent.
> If there is a huge disparity, such as the custodial parent is now living in a seven-figure household, while the non-custodial parent is struggling your might be able to get a reduction based on the equities, but that is a long shot. Sorry.


Similar to here in Canada, if one payer declares financial hardship they will consider all the other financial factors presented, and will request income tax returns for anyone else living in either household.


----------



## PBear

Here's my thoughts, as a dad who pays thousands (literally) in CS every month. It doesn't cost any less to support a child in a wealthy house than it does in a less wealthy house. The kids still need to eat. They still need cloths. And those costs aren't the responsibility of the step-parent. So in the same way I don't expect a wealthy person to pay for my meal if we go out for lunch, I would t expect them to pay for my kids expenses just because they live with them. 

Plus... Do you think you'd chip in more if your ex was married to a deadbeat with no money? I doubt you'd be willing to make up much of a difference if things went to the other extreme...

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lon

PBear said:


> Here's my thoughts, as a dad who pays thousands (literally) in CS every month. It doesn't cost any less to support a child in a wealthy house than it does in a less wealthy house. The kids still need to eat. They still need cloths. And those costs aren't the responsibility of the step-parent. So in the same way I don't expect a wealthy person to pay for my meal if we go out for lunch, I would t expect them to pay for my kids expenses just because they live with them.
> 
> Plus... Do you think you'd chip in more if your ex was married to a deadbeat with no money? I doubt you'd be willing to make up much of a difference if things went to the other extreme...
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Do you have shared custody? If so, you know that you still have to pay the cost of your kids to eat when they are with you, and you would know that buying clothes that always seem to end up at the other parents while your child comes back in ones that have stains/tears or just no longer fit gets to be an expensive proposition. And as the higher earner, I pay 2/3rd of the extras, meaning his mother has a large incentive to incur as much extras for our son as she can (not without my approval of course, but she knows which buttons to press to get me open my wallet for my child).

From my own financial perspective it would be much cheaper for me to have full custody than shared, even if I received not a single cent from my child's mother.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

Why do you buy things support should cover? Do you want acknowledgement from the kids for doing that?

That money isn't for HER electricity, clothes and groceries. It's for the your share of the KID'S clothes, groceries, personal supplies, their use of electricity and other utilities.

However, I do think a new spouse's income should be considered NOT for supporting the kids of another person, but because now HER personal "income" has increased. I know it is in my state.

Say you make 100K, she makes 50K. Understandably, the amount it costs to raise the kids - let's say 10K a year - you are responsible for 6667 of and she is responsible for 3333. If they live with you, she pays that to you; if they live with her, you pay her. If it's 50/50, you owe her 1667 to even things out for the kids.

BUT if the new guy makes moves in and they pool their money it effectively is increasing her "income" because he's contributing to the mortgage and other household bills whereas before she was paying all of it.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: More child support chat.*



EnjoliWoman said:


> BUT if the new guy makes moves in and they pool their money it effectively is increasing her "income" because he's contributing to the mortgage and other household bills whereas before she was paying all of it.


That is the crux of the issue I was trying to distinguish.

Unfortunately there is nothing to quantify here, because the amount of income my ex reported on her taxes has gone from little to nothing. Because her new H now pays everything for her, including any expenses for my child, along with my CS payments while my child is there. With her now going on mat leave, it just means as I receive pay raises and promotions I will just continue to pay more and more each month, while her new H also earns more and more.

Because she remarried and chooses to be unemployed, I am further punished for bringing in a little more while with every turn her standard of living continually improves. My child standard of living improves there, but not nearly as fast with me.

I am surprised there are not a lot more stories in the news about divorced husbands hiring hitmen to take care of their exes.


----------



## lenzi

Lon said:


> What about in a shared custody situation


_If both parents share custody does anyone pay child support?

Yes. Under New York’s Child Supports Standards Act, child support is to be paid by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent based upon the formula set up by the State, which is a percentage of your gross income after deductions for your FICA withholdings (which is 7.65% of your income). The non-custodial parent is the parent who has less than 50% of the physical custodial time with the child.

Further, if the parents have an absolute 50/50 split of physical custody with the child and there is no way to determine if someone has just over 50%, then the parent whose income is higher is determined to be the non-custodial parent and must pay the other parent child support. However, it is possible for parents to contractually agree to waive child support from each other._


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: More child support chat.*



lenzi said:


> _If both parents share custody does anyone pay child support?
> 
> Yes. Under New York’s Child Supports Standards Act, child support is to be paid by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent based upon the formula set up by the State, which is a percentage of your gross income after deductions for your FICA withholdings (which is 7.65% of your income). The non-custodial parent is the parent who has less than 50% of the physical custodial time with the child.
> 
> Further, if the parents have an absolute 50/50 split of physical custody with the child and there is no way to determine if someone has just over 50%, then the parent whose income is higher is determined to be the non-custodial parent and must pay the other parent child support. However, it is possible for parents to contractually agree to waive child support from each other._


I'm glad for the way the law is here, more government befits and programs are recognizing shared custody situations where both parents retain full custodial rights so long as each has custody for minimum 40% of the time. I am in a 50/50 arrangement, but the CS payment formula is entirely dependent on income in this kind of arrangement. As soon as one or the other forfeits custody then CS comes entirely from the non custodial.

Where it gets tricky is with the Canada dependent tax credit, which for me works out to around $6k a year non refundable tax credit but because my income is higher I'm not technically entitled to it, however I think there are some legal cases before the courts that are challenging this, and thankfully my ex has agreed to let us each take turns claiming. So long as we both don't try claiming it Canada revenue doesn't really care who does.


----------



## southbound

PBear said:


> Here's my thoughts, as a dad who pays thousands (literally) in CS every month. It doesn't cost any less to support a child in a wealthy house than it does in a less wealthy house. The kids still need to eat. They still need cloths. And those costs aren't the responsibility of the step-parent. So in the same way I don't expect a wealthy person to pay for my meal if we go out for lunch, I would t expect them to pay for my kids expenses just because they live with them.
> 
> Plus... Do you think you'd chip in more if your ex was married to a deadbeat with no money? I doubt you'd be willing to make up much of a difference if things went to the other extreme...
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Yes, it's not the step-parent's responsibility, but still, that's looking at technicalities. I'm not saying the payer should not contribute anything. Sure, I'd buy school clothes, prom dresses, lunches, you name it, but i think the check could be stopped. And if the person paying were out less, perhaps the environment for the kids could be better when they are with them. 

You asked if i would spend more if she married a dead beat. No, it may be the same thing, but seems different. However, if I suddenly became a millionaire and she were struggling, I would say, "just forget buying the kids clothes and all that; I'll take care of all of that stuff." I don't think I would technically up the payment to her if I became a millionaire, but I would always be willing to contribute to things directly related to the kids.


----------



## Morgiana

If the ex stops working, it doesn't mean your support should go up. Ex should have imputed income assigned for whatever their last wage was. My ex tried to tell me if I didn't agree to pay him more he was going to take me to court because he wanted to take unpaid leave from work. Guess who got laughed at...


----------



## Hardtohandle

@ Lenzi

I'm going off topic here. I hope it answers someone elses concerns as well.

NYC here, Joint custody of my 2 boys.. The boys live with me. 

Why do I have to fill out a financial form with my income for family court then. I am pretty sure on the paperwork they gave me it list some sort of wording that points in the direction that my income does come into play on how much support she will pay me. 

I will know for sure on Oct 29th... 

But I tell you this article and case law is not encouraging to men at least. Especially when a judge is fudging "waking hours" in an attempt to favor the wife..

Parenting Time, Not Legal Custody, Determines Entitlement to Child Support | Divorce: New York


----------



## lenzi

Hardtohandle said:


> @ Lenzi
> 
> Why do I have to fill out a financial form with my income for family court then.


Because it's standard operating procedure. Whenever you're headed to family court they want the financial information. They probably won't even look at it because it's not relevant.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

Here legal custody is almost always 50/50 unless parents absolutely cannot agree on anything and in cases of domestic violence where it's not feasible to have two people co-parent on decisions. And then there is physical custody - that is what determines support. There is joint physical custody (50/50 or really close) then primary physical custody (one parent has the kid(s) the majority of the time) and sole physical custody which is usually in instances of child abuse, parent in prison, etc.

So legal custody shouldn't determine support but rather physical custody - the number of nights spent with one parent or the other.
I could see waking hours being used in instances of unusual work hours - if Mom works 3rd shift so kids sleep at Dad's but Mom buys all of the clothes, pays for everything, provides all of the meals (i.e. she feeds them dinner, takes them to Dad's on the way to work then picks them up first thing, provides breakfast and takes to school) then I could see waking hours being a factor. But I would think that's an exception and not the rule.


----------



## Hardtohandle

lenzi said:


> Because it's standard operating procedure. Whenever you're headed to family court they want the financial information. They probably won't even look at it because it's not relevant.


Okay.. Comforting to know..

I know criminal law and criminal court, but family court is crazy because of the whole preponderance of the evidence thing.. I understand why its there.. People will be shady and trying to prove this stuff can be hard especially with off the book work.

Plus I know so many cops that are just flat broke. They pay child support and ex wife Mortgage and car loan, ETC... 

I count myself *EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY *fortunate to be in the position I am in..


----------



## southbound

I don't have the history of child support law in front of me, but I would guess that it started in the days when women were not as likely to be working outside the home. The dad might run off and leave them with very little and create a terrible situation for the mother and kids. 

I'm sure that may be the case today as well, but not nearly as much. usually, there are two incomes. I think it especially wrong when the wife just decides "she's not happy anymore" because the bread isn't buttered correctly. So what if she has to downsize on her current living situation, the dad doesn't usually live in a mansion either. What's wrong with dad having a little "niceness" to give when the kids visit him? 

As the other poster mentioned, he knows some policemen who are practically broke paying child support; what sense does that make?


----------



## Pluto2

Separate child support from spousal support. Spousal support started when women were primarily SAHM and were destitute upon divorce.
Child support is completely different.
I have little sympathy for any parent who feels financially strained by child support obligations. They are your kids-you have a legal and moral obligation to pay for their support.


----------



## lenzi

Pluto2 said:


> I have little sympathy for any parent who feels financially strained by child support obligations. They are your kids-you have a legal and moral obligation to pay for their support.



Just because it's paid doesn't mean the children benefit from it.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: More child support chat.*



Pluto2 said:


> Separate child support from spousal support. Spousal support started when women were primarily SAHM and were destitute upon divorce.
> Child support is completely different.
> I have little sympathy for any parent who feels financially strained by child support obligations. They are your kids-you have a legal and moral obligation to pay for their support.


My friend chose to leave his W because of her negativity, heavy use of marijuana and lethargic attitude (except when partying with her gfs) and unwillingness to change, no infidelity on either part, both have gone in to other relationships, but she is still a little obsessed with him. They were married 8 years with a separation early on that lasted almost a year.

He earns easily 6 figures (for now, until this project is over and he has to line up another one, likely in a different province). He has 50% custody and pays his ex $5k a month in SS and CS. He doesn't complain, and while it isn't an economic hardship, I feel for him because it's thousands a month that he could otherwise be using at his own discretion (be it taking his kids traveling, saving for their college education, saving equity for their inheritance, or taking early retirement to spend time with them as they grow up). Instead it goes to his ex who uses it to continue just getting by, paying the mortgage on a big house, and buying pot and booze to party when the kids are with dad. He is also stuck having to continue earning his level of income until both his kids are no longer dependents, since that is what the courts would impune him with.


----------



## PBear

He has 50% custody and he's still paying 5k/month? That doesn't seem right, but it depends on how much "6 figures" are... 

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pluto2

I'm not denying that there might be abuse in some cases. Anytime you set up a system, someone will find a way to take advantage of it because we are human beings who aren't always good people. Anytime a court orders someone to pay money to a former spouse it will breed anger and resentment. But abuse is present only when the kids are actually neglected in the legal sense-no food, no heat, no medical care. Short of that you can disagree with how a custodial parent spends their money, but too bad. It is not your business.

Lon, if your friend's wife is using drugs and drinks to excess, why doesn't your friend apply for physical custody?

An isolated story of some guy paying 5K in support doesn't change the last census report finding that three-quarters of children in divorced families lived with their mother in 2009 while some 28% of them were below the poverty rate, versus a 19% poverty rate among other children.
Divorce Rates Highest in the South, Lowest in the Northeast, Census Bureau Reports - Marital Status & Living Arrangements - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau

The US is looking at about one-third of all kids from divorce living below the poverty rate. IMO, that's shameful


----------



## EnjoliWoman

$5K in SS and CS - so part of that is spousal support. 

People really should be expected to work and to continue to maintain a certain lifestyle. I don't think a man or a woman should be allowed to just stop working. And any person who didn't work before needs to get a job.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

Pluto2 said:


> I'm not denying that there might be abuse in some cases. Anytime you set up a system, someone will find a way to take advantage of it because we are human beings who aren't always good people. Anytime a court orders someone to pay money to a former spouse it will breed anger and resentment. But abuse is present only when the kids are actually neglected in the legal sense-no food, no heat, no medical care. Short of that you can disagree with how a custodial parent spends their money, but too bad. It is not your business.
> 
> Lon, if your friend's wife is using drugs and drinks to excess, why doesn't your friend apply for physical custody?
> 
> An isolated story of some guy paying 5K in support doesn't change the last census report finding that three-quarters of children in divorced families lived with their mother in 2009 while some 28% of them were below the poverty rate, versus a 19% poverty rate among other children.
> Divorce Rates Highest in the South, Lowest in the Northeast, Census Bureau Reports - Marital Status & Living Arrangements - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau
> 
> The US is looking at about one-third of all kids from divorce living below the poverty rate. IMO, that's shameful


Not to knock my area of the country, but in the south there are more living in poverty, less high education, most divorce and the most single (never married) parents... I see a connection: less education means less higher education which means more living in poverty. Those with higher education seem to marry later and have more success in marriage as well - I attribute that to better life skills in general: communication, organization and decision making to name a few. 

I really think it all starts with education but parents need to be invested in it as well. Many aren't. One of my best friends is an elementary teacher and it amazes me the trashy parent stories, the lack of helping kids read, the general blame games between two unmarried parents and sense of entitlement 
for government support along with a lot of complacency (it was good enough for X, then it's good enough for Jr).

It is a shame. But we need unskilled labor - everyone can't be well off. But we DO need a much bigger middle class. That certainly needs improvement.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: More child support chat.*



PBear said:


> He has 50% custody and he's still paying 5k/month? That doesn't seem right, but it depends on how much "6 figures" are...
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


6 figures in this case was 250k+ in 2006-2011, then dropped to just over 150k when he took a multi year project closer to home in order to live at home instead of camp. Part of that monthly payment is temporary spousal support, which he is done legally being required to pay, but is trying weaning to wean her off while minimizing the drama.

And as for the pot and drinking, she sneaks a puff in here and there during her custody, but not getting wasted or stoned, she's a good mom, but when she is not in custody is when she parties it up. She just has her own set of priorities that don't involve growing up, she grew up raising her sister in an abusive home, and other than liking to cut loose every other week she is actually rather responsible. It's not in the best interest of the kids (or any of them) for him to seek sole custody.


----------



## southbound

lenzi said:


> Just because it's paid doesn't mean the children benefit from it.


Exactly. people always like to pretend that if one complains about paying child support, it's the same as saying you don't want to support your kids; that's hogwash. Who in their right mind wouldn't want the best for their kids? But as you wrote, just because it's paid doesn't mean the children benefits from it all.

People also make a statement like, "The mother "needs" that check to support the kids." Gee, if she's in just ok shape with a big fat check coming in, imagine the guy who not only does not have one coming in, but has a big one going out. 

I'd rather have to report to the police department once a month and show evidence that I spent money that directly benefited my kids rather than just hand somebody a check.


----------



## lenzi

southbound said:


> Exactly. people always like to pretend that if one complains about paying child support, it's the same as saying you don't want to support your kids; that's hogwash. Who in their right mind wouldn't want the best for their kids? But as you wrote, just because it's paid doesn't mean the children benefits from it all.


My daughter is headed upstate to college in a few months. It's cold, and snowy, and the winters are long. She doesn't have a winter coat or gloves or a hat, and her mom "doesn't have the money" for any of that or even furnishings for her dorm room.

I've been paying her $3500 per month in child support and will continue to be paying that for another 2.5 years. And yet here's my daughter asking me to help her with these things that mom "can't afford" to get for her..mom remained voluntarily unemployed (she's a nurse) for over 6 years and just recently went back to work when things started getting a bit snug for her financially.


----------



## southbound

lenzi said:


> My daughter is headed upstate to college in a few months. It's cold, and snowy, and the winters are long. She doesn't have a winter coat or gloves or a hat, and her mom "doesn't have the money" for any of that or even furnishings for her dorm room.
> 
> I've been paying her $3500 per month in child support and will continue to be paying that for another 2.5 years. And yet here's my daughter asking me to help her with these things that mom "can't afford" to get for her..mom remained voluntarily unemployed (she's a nurse) for over 6 years and just recently went back to work when things started getting a bit snug for her financially.


Perfect example of how the system doesn't quite work in my opinion.


----------



## daddymikey1975

*Re: Re: More child support chat.*



Lon said:


> That is the crux of the issue I was trying to distinguish.
> 
> Unfortunately there is nothing to quantify here, because the amount of income my ex reported on her taxes has gone from little to nothing. Because her new H now pays everything for her, including any expenses for my child, along with my CS payments while my child is there. With her now going on mat leave, it just means as I receive pay raises and promotions I will just continue to pay more and more each month, while her new H also earns more and more.
> 
> Because she remarried and chooses to be unemployed, I am further punished for bringing in a little more while with every turn her standard of living continually improves. My child standard of living improves there, but not nearly as fast with me.
> 
> I am surprised there are not a lot more stories in the news about divorced husbands hiring hitmen to take care of their exes.


In Indiana, if one parent remarries and eases the financial burden of the remarried parent, the new spouses income can be imputed to the remarried parent, such that it will more fairly distribute the available funds to the children. 

Some may say it's "not the step parents responsibility to raise our pay for stuff for your kids" as a former step parent, I disagree. 

When I got married, my ex had a 2 yr old son and it was my responsibility to provide for him just like I had to for her. I did so without hesitation for almost 12 years and was never bitter. Step kids are a package deal. 

On the flip side of the coin, if my ex remarries, it still doesn't alleviate me of my job as their dad. 

Just my opinion.


----------



## honcho

southbound said:


> That's the current "technical" side of the situation. l'll make the example a little more extreme. Let's say the woman receiving child support marries a millionaire, while the father paying it has a very meager existence. I'm just asking if that makes sense. It doesn't to me.
> 
> And, let's say the father is buying the kids what they need. It's obvious the mother would no longer "need" the money from him.


By the time you get a reduction with the way the courts work your 16 year old will most likely be an adult. As much as it sucks you really dont have much of a case for a reduction. Her new husbands wage or wealth wont be figured for any calculation for child support. 

Child support is a necessary evil but like so much of divorce the original notion behind it and real life application are two very different things. She doesnt have to spend a dime on the kids with the money, she just gets it no matter what and the states could care less if she does or doesnt. Kids are used as income generators for the person receiving it much more than how much the childrens expenses actually are.


----------



## Thundarr

southbound said:


> I know that doesn’t erase my financial responsibility toward my kids, but I’m not some dad who sees them once in a blue moon and never pays anything else. We live close, and I see them a lot, and I buy a lot of needs and recreation for them. It’s obvious she no longer “needs” my check for her electric bill, clothes, and groceries, but I’m sure it’s nice bonus to have it come in every month.
> 
> I realize a 16 year old isn’t exactly a decision maker, but my daughter was even stunned. When they got married, my daughter said, “Well dad, I don’t know how much you were paying, but at least you won’t have to do that anymore.” I told her that I would and she was shocked and even a bit angry. She said, “Dad, you buy us more stuff than mom does, what sense does that make.”
> 
> Forget about technicalities, does this situation really make a lot of sense?


If you sign over custodial rights to your ex's husband then sure he assumes financial responsibility for them. Otherwise it's the responsibility of custodial parents to support their own kids. That's not a technicality. It's more of a principle.

Imagine that you're dating some girl and when you marry her then you're child support increases. That's the same logic applied to your ex's husband reducing what you pay. That wouldn't make sense to me just as your ex's husband becoming financially responsible for your kids doesn't make sense either.


----------



## southbound

honcho said:


> By the time you get a reduction with the way the courts work your 16 year old will most likely be an adult. As much as it sucks you really dont have much of a case for a reduction. Her new husbands wage or wealth wont be figured for any calculation for child support.
> 
> Child support is a necessary evil but like so much of divorce the original notion behind it and real life application are two very different things. She doesnt have to spend a dime on the kids with the money, she just gets it no matter what and the states could care less if she does or doesnt. Kids are used as income generators for the person receiving it much more than how much the childrens expenses actually are.


That seems to be the case.


----------



## southbound

Thundarr said:


> If you sign over custodial rights to your ex's husband then sure he assumes financial responsibility for them. Otherwise it's the responsibility of custodial parents to support their own kids. That's not a technicality. It's more of a principle.
> 
> Imagine that you're dating some girl and when you marry her then you're child support increases. That's the same logic applied to your ex's husband reducing what you pay. That wouldn't make sense to me just as your ex's husband becoming financially responsible for your kids doesn't make sense either.


I guess it's tough to get across what I'm trying to say, or maybe i have and people still just disagree. 

When two people marry, I don't see it as it becomes the step parent's responsibility to take care of them solely, but 

What sense does it make for someone who is barely scraping by to give a check to someone who is leading a lavish lifestyle? I'm not saying the payer suddenly stops making contributions to his children, but why couldn't he just do it himself? Why couldn't he take them school shopping, pay their dentist bills, etc., Why give someone a check so they can make their next boat payment while the payer can barely afford a toy boat for his kids to play with in the bathtub?


----------



## Thundarr

southbound said:


> I guess it's tough to get across what I'm trying to say, or maybe i have and people still just disagree.
> 
> When two people marry, I don't see it as it becomes the step parent's responsibility to take care of them solely, but
> 
> What sense does it make for someone who is barely scraping by to give a check to someone who is leading a lavish lifestyle? I'm not saying the payer suddenly stops making contributions to his children, but why couldn't he just do it himself? Why couldn't he take them school shopping, pay their dentist bills, etc., Why give someone a check so they can make their next boat payment while the payer can barely afford a toy boat for his kids to play with in the bathtub?


I get what you're saying Southbound. It seems messed up for someone struggling to have to pay support to someone who's not struggling. An argument might even be made in some cases that it's not good for the kids when the struggling parent can't do things for them because he or she is too broke. That being said, it just conflicts with my own feeling of wanting to feel like I supported my kids. It's also complicated and subjective to figure out the fringe cases where it actually does make sense.

After my own split years ago, I bought a crappy little house (800 sq/ft). My wife married and they bought a big nice house. For me, there was no way I was going to let anyone else (and especially a step) get credit for supporting my kids. I'm not saying that I'm right to think that way but it's certainly the way I felt.


----------



## southbound

Thundarr said:


> I get what you're saying Southbound. It seems messed up for someone struggling to have to pay support to someone who's not struggling. An argument might even be made in some cases that it's not good for the kids when the struggling parent can't do things for them because he or she is too broke. That being said, it just conflicts with my own feeling of wanting to feel like I supported my kids. It's also complicated and subjective to figure out the fringe cases where it actually does make sense.
> 
> After my own split years ago, I bought a crappy little house (800 sq/ft). My wife married and they bought a big nice house. For me, there was no way I was going to let anyone else (and especially a step) get credit for supporting my kids. I'm not saying that I'm right to think that way but it's certainly the way I felt.


I see what you are saying too, it just seems like there could be a better way to support my kids. handing someone a check doesn't necessarily make me feel like I support my kids. On the other hand, if a man had more money so his kids could say, "Hey, look at all these school clothes dad bought me," or, "I needed braces and dad payed for them," or, "Dad payed for all my club dues at school." Handing someone a check to me is a technicality, it doesn't make me feel like i am directly supporting my kids.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

lenzi said:


> My daughter is headed upstate to college in a few months. It's cold, and snowy, and the winters are long. She doesn't have a winter coat or gloves or a hat, and her mom "doesn't have the money" for any of that or even furnishings for her dorm room.
> 
> I've been paying her $3500 per month in child support and will continue to be paying that for another 2.5 years. And yet here's my daughter asking me to help her with these things that mom "can't afford" to get for her..mom remained voluntarily unemployed (she's a nurse) for over 6 years and just recently went back to work when things started getting a bit snug for her financially.



I'd be tempted to buy the things she needs, deduct it from the support check with a copy of the receipts and see what happens. If she can't afford a coat she probably couldn't afford an attorney, so what could she really do about it?

I think if spouse ever had a trade or the education in a field even if they hadn't worked, the support should be calculated assuming either entry level pay in that field or the last salary they had in that field. Maybe if support were based on the assumption the ex should maintain employment, there would be an incentive for her to do so.

And this is why divorced people who had a profession should be required to work. And if they have no education and were always a house wife, the they could have a limited number of years to go to school to begin to pursue a career before the alimony runs out and support is reduced to include the new salary in support calculations. 

There are so many variables but it seems there could be a formula that takes a lot more into consideration than his salary/her salary and who the kids live with the majority of the time.


----------



## lenzi

EnjoliWoman said:


> I'd be tempted to buy the things she needs, deduct it from the support check with a copy of the receipts and see what happens. If she can't afford a coat she probably couldn't afford an attorney, so what could she really do about it?


Interesting idea. When she had money during the divorce, she'd file one legal motion after another, making the divorce much more costly than it otherwise would have been.

Now that she's running out of money, she'll do anything to avoid going back to court, however she is in the process of selling her house, which she obtained with her share of the divorce proceeds. If things work out, she'll close by the end of this month, and she's going to get an infusion of cash, probably to the tune of about $200k. She'll blow through it of course, but the money makes her dangerous. If I start playing games with the child support she just might go back to her prior attorneys. Then again, perhaps with the additional money she just might buy the things our daughter needs. 

Let's see how this pans out over the next few months.


----------

