# Are child support payments set up to be a punishment?



## R.J.

In many cases child support obligations are so extreme that a person could hardly survive after paying out. I've met guys with payments so high that I've asked them how do they even eat. I truly believe that dead beat parents have ruined it for the better parent. I can't just limit this to men because women are affected too. 

Someone told me that parents that pay child support sometimes pay so much because the courts use a portion of those funds to cover payments to the parent of children of nonpaying parents. Another person told me that the payments may be extreme if the custodial parent is receiving welfare benefits because part of the payment is covering those costs.

I personally think it's a mess if the payments are so high that the custodial parent doesn't even have to work. Is that really child support or support altogether? I've always thought that child support was intended to provide for the child, but if the payments are so extreme that the rewarded parent don't have to provide on their part then the payments are more than child support. Is this fair?

This is why so many men view children as financial punishments. Some don't love their children any less as a result, but they still feel as though they're being punished. 

Child support can be so intimidating to men without children that they refuse to have any children out of fear of having to pay such high amounts.

I do understand the perspective of the single parents out there whose spouses don't contribute anything towards the support of their children. I know that must be frustrating and hard. However, why should the supportive parent have to pay so much for support? Especially when they're buying the child's necessities (shoes, clothes, etc.) in addition to paying support. Isn't it a problem when the custodial parent doesn't even have to work because they're receiving so much in child support payments?

Are child support payments set up to be a punishment?


----------



## Ten_year_hubby

R.J. said:


> In many cases child support obligations are so extreme that a person could hardly survive after paying out. I've met guys with payments so high that I've asked them how do they even eat. I truly believe that dead beat parents have ruined it for the better parent. I can't just limit this to men because women are affected too.
> 
> Someone told me that parents that pay child support sometimes pay so much because the courts use a portion of those funds to cover payments to the parent of children of nonpaying parents. Another person told me that the payments may be extreme if the custodial parent is receiving welfare benefits because part of the payment is covering those costs.
> 
> I personally think it's a mess if the payments are so high that the custodial parent doesn't even have to work. Is that really child support or support altogether? I've always thought that child support was intended to provide for the child, but if the payments are so extreme that the rewarded parent don't have to provide on their part then the payments are more than child support. Is this fair?
> 
> This is why so many men view children as financial punishments. Some don't love their children any less as a result, but they still feel as though they're being punished.
> 
> Child support can be so intimidating to men without children that they refuse to have any children out of fear of having to pay such high amounts.
> 
> I do understand the perspective of the single parents out there whose spouses don't contribute anything towards the support of their children. I know that must be frustrating and hard. However, why should the supportive parent have to pay so much for support? Especially when they're buying the child's necessities (shoes, clothes, etc.) in addition to paying support. Isn't it a problem when the custodial parent doesn't even have to work because their receiving so much in child support payments?
> 
> Are child support payments set up to be a punishment?


No. Neither is spousal support. The payments are set up as to what the court deems to be fair. Custody is the last outpost of gender based inequality and even that is under attack.


----------



## Hope1964

I like the way Canada does it. Child support payments are based solely on what the paying parent makes in wages. So if the paying parent has a low paying job, their payments are lower. It isn't based on what the custodial parent makes, unless there's a very large discrepancy. The paying parent is also never responsible for buying the necessities of life for the children. Things can be worked out as far as program fees and things, but the custodial parent is expected to pay for food, shelter etc.

Of course if there's no court order in place, anything can happen. Even when there is a court order in place, anything can happen. My ex owes me over $65,000.00 right now which I never expect to see.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't CS based on a percentage of the non-custodial parents income? So say they pay $1200 a month for two kids, it is because that spouse can afford to pay it. If they are making only $1200 a month, it would be something like $200 a month. I don't see this as punishment at all. In fact, try raising a child or two on child support. I see countless people who struggle to do so and the only ones who really lose out are the kids.


----------



## R.J.

Yes you're correct that the court determines the amount of income that the non-custodial parent must pay based off of their income, but it's ridiculous what some of those percentages are. 

My buddy gross' $40k/yr. He has 2 children and pays a total of $1000 in child support for both. If you consider what he has left after all the taxes, other obligations are taken out of his check, and the $1000 child support payment that he has to pay that's ridiculous. He's freakin poor. And his children's mother SITS ON HER A$$ ALL DAY and don't do anything. If you consider she lives in a 1 bedroom trailer with 1000 other people, $1000 is alot of money in that situation.

He has been back to court several times begging them to lower the payments because he's hardly making it, but his problem is that he doesn't have a lawyer. The courts aren't trying to hear him without a lawyer and he just doesn't understand all the documents needed to start the process and who gets which document etc.. 

It's a big mess so for now he's stuck paying support unless he quits, loses his license, and gets a warrant put out for his arrest.


----------



## that_girl

Doesn't matter. People don't have to pay.

My dad didn't pay my whole life...he had to do a backpay check...but...is child support a punishment? Only if not paid.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

R.J. said:


> Yes you're correct that the court determines the amount of income that the non-custodial parent must pay based off of their income, but it's ridiculous what some of those percentages are.
> 
> My buddy gross' $40k/yr. He has 2 children and pays a total of $1000 in child support for both. If you consider what he has left after all the taxes, other obligations are taken out of his check, and the $1000 child support payment that he has to pay that's ridiculous. He's freakin poor. And his children's mother SITS ON HER A$$ ALL DAY and don't do anything. If you consider she lives in a 1 bedroom trailer with 1000 other people, $1000 is alot of money in that situation.


Unfortunately there are stories like that. There are plenty more however of the custodial parent getting $1000 a month for two kids who need braces/sports equipment/clothes/food/shelter/car to ride in/school supplies/birthday party gifts, etc. I honestly do not know a single person getting child support (both men and women) who profited from it. Kids are pricey just for the basics.


----------



## R.J.

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Unfortunately there are stories like that. There are plenty more however of the custodial parent getting $1000 a month for two kids who need braces/sports equipment/clothes/food/shelter/car to ride in/school supplies/birthday party gifts, etc. I honestly do not know a single person getting child support (both men and women) who profited from it. Kids are pricey just for the basics.


What if the non-custodial parent is buying school supplies EVERY semester of school, sending shoes each time b-mama call to say they're too small, sending clothes every few months because b-mama claims they no longer fit, etc. My friend is doing more than paying child support. He does tons more that I think the child support should be covering.


----------



## pidge70

Ask my dad how punished he was. He paid child support to my ex stepmom but, owed my mom over $50,000. He was a mine manager making big bucks, his child support payment?......$160 a month for me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TNgirl232

R.J. said:


> What if the non-custodial parent is buying school supplies EVERY semester of school, sending shoes each time b-mama call to say they're too small, sending clothes every few months because b-mama claims they no longer fit, etc. My friend is doing more than paying child support. He does tons more that I think the child support should be covering.


He is not required by the court to do this so he can say no. That's what the 1000 is for. He should talk to legal aid and see if someone there could help him he might be able to count those costs towards his payments.

Child support goes to pay for housing, utilities,clothes,food,medical, etc. Etc.


----------



## that_girl

R.J. said:


> What if the non-custodial parent is buying school supplies EVERY semester of school, sending shoes each time b-mama call to say they're too small, sending clothes every few months because b-mama claims they no longer fit, etc. My friend is doing more than paying child support. He does tons more that I think the child support should be covering.


They're his kids. Kids can cost money. If what he pays only covers rent (to have more than one bedroom) and food and bills, then he should pay for shoes, clothes, etc if mom can't afford it.

Seriously. The support isn't just for clothes, etc. It's for LIVING.


----------



## R.J.

that_girl said:


> They're his kids. Kids can cost money. If what he pays only covers rent (to have more than one bedroom) and food and bills, then he should pay for shoes, clothes, etc if mom can't afford it.
> 
> Seriously. The support isn't just for clothes, etc. It's for LIVING.


 I'm sorry. It works two ways. I just don't think that he should have to cough up so much money just because he doesn't have sole custody of the children. I could see if he wasn't contributing in their lives at all, but he is contributing, actively involved, & paying child support. The mother doesn't even work! Come on. Its not fair & when your life is set up this way, it feels like a punishment.

I'm a woman & I feel so bad for some guys who pay high amounts of child support that I don't see myself ever putting a man on those payments. I really think in some cases it's pure robbery.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TNgirl232

that_girl said:


> They're his kids. Kids can cost money. If what he pays only covers rent (to have more than one bedroom) and food and bills, then he should pay for shoes, clothes, etc if mom can't afford it.
> 
> Seriously. The support isn't just for clothes, etc. It's for LIVING.


But this is not right. Mom has to 'pay' as well. I pay a certain amount each month according to court records, but since I am the custodial parent I can't cut myself a check. Letting her get away with not paying her fair share is like its saying its ok for the dad not to pay if he can't afford it. Its an unfair double standard.

He is responsible for the court ordered amount, no more or less.

However most parents will cover the slacking of the other to make sure the kids are taken care of. I do it as I haven't seen a dime in over 3 years. Being able to keep reciepts for what he buys to count towards his monthly amount would help here, if the court will let him.


----------



## TNgirl232

Its not really up to you wether or nt there is child suport, the court decides the payments. They do it automatically.


----------



## EleGirl

R.J. said:


> Someone told me that parents that pay child support sometimes pay so much because the courts use a portion of those funds to cover payments to the parent of children of nonpaying parents.


The above are not true. 
Another person told me that the payments may be extreme if the custodial parent is receiving welfare benefits because part of the payment is covering those costs. [/QUOTE]
When a custodial parent gets welfare for their children.. the child support they receive is considered in the welfare & food stamp determination. They get less based on the support. In some cases the non-custodial parent does not always pay support when required so welfare is given and then the state will take some of the child support, when paid to offset the support they had to give during the time when no support was given. Children need a roof over their heads and food even when the paying parent choses to not pay support.



R.J. said:


> I personally think it's a mess if the payments are so high that the custodial parent doesn't even have to work. Is that really child support or support altogether? I've always thought that child support was intended to provide for the child, but if the payments are so extreme that the rewarded parent don't have to provide on their part then the payments are more than child support. Is this fair?


We’d have to look at specific cases to see if this is true. It might be the case that the parent paying child support was living above their means and ran up debt. And now they complain that the child support is too high, when in reality it’s the debt that they ran up that is the problem. 

I have never heard of child support payments so high that the custodial parent could completely live off of them.


----------



## EleGirl

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Correct me if I am wrong but isn't CS based on a percentage of the non-custodial parents income? So say they pay $1200 a month for two kids, it is because that spouse can afford to pay it. If they are making only $1200 a month, it would be something like $200 a month. I don't see this as punishment at all. In fact, try raising a child or two on child support. I see countless people who struggle to do so and the only ones who really lose out are the kids.


Child support is based on several factors.. the amount of both parent's income, the percentage of time the child(ren) spend at each parent's house, and a child's special needs.

IF both parents make the same income and there is 50/50 physical custody, neither parent will pay the other child support.

The formula is pretty easy to figure out.

In my divorce, at the time we divorced, my hsuband mad $145,000 annually. His child support was $800. I really don't think that's out of hand.

I've been doing child support calculations recently for the state of california... and example... huband earns $130,000 a year. Wife earns $12000 a year. One child at home. Support is $900 a month to the wife.


----------



## EleGirl

R.J. said:


> I'm sorry. It works two ways. I just don't think that he should have to cough up so much money just because he doesn't have sole custody of the children. I could see if he wasn't contributing in their lives at all, but he is contributing, actively involved, & paying child support. The mother doesn't even work! Come on. Its not fair & when your life is set up this way, it feels like a punishment.
> 
> I'm a woman & I feel so bad for some guys who pay high amounts of child support that I don't see myself ever putting a man on those payments. I really think in some cases it's pure robbery.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


We cannot judge what you are talking about because you are not giving us real numbers to work with. We have no idea if these people you are talking about are really paying too much in child support. We only know through you that they are complaining about how much they pay.

IN your case, if you divorce your husband you will most likely be paying him child support even if he has the kids less than you do. I've seen that happen.


----------



## EleGirl

Ten_year_hubby said:


> No. Neither is spousal support. The payments are set up as to what the court deems to be fair. Custody is the last outpost of gender based inequality and even that is under attack.


MOre and more today custody is 50/50 or as close to that as possible. And child support is completely gender nutral. They plug the percentage of time a child is with each parent and their income into a software tool. The tool calculates the amount and that's it.

If the woman earns more, she's as likely to pay support as a man who earns more.


----------



## I Know

R.J.;539390
Are child support payments set up to be a punishment?[/QUOTE said:


> Sure seems like it. In my state child support includes paying for your kids college, even tho you as a parent would never have done that. You'd never pay for college even if you had stayed married.
> In effect: the court is ordering your kids to college on your dime.
> 
> And funny how Xbox is now considered by the court, something that is essential to raising a kid now. Oh and don't forget the Air Jordans. Can't have a kid growing up w/out those.
> 
> Didn't this used to be America? Land of the free, etc,etc.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Elegirl,

I have never heard of child support payments being that high either. The reality is that the money being "awarded" by the courts are a fraction to raise a child. If you are the custodial parent, you without any doubt pay more than the non-custodial person to pay for the children. 
Take a look at the stats about divorce and what happens to women post. If it was all sunshine and glitter, the stats wouldn't be what they are. 
In my case, if my husband decided to divorce me....he would be legally required to pay for his youngest. His eldest is nearly 19 and despite living here, my husband wouldn't have to pay a dime. Not for living expenses, not for college, not for any of it.....just for his youngest UNTIL he turned 18. At that point, forget it legally.
I find it incredible that some men get so up in arms about child support. I just do.


----------



## I Know

Oh yeah, and people are surprised by the decline in marriages?


----------



## FrankKissel

> I have never heard of child support payments so high that the custodial parent could completely live off of them.


It's possible in cases in which dad is pulling down serious coin, but highly, highly improbable in the case cited by OP.

If she says dad is practically in the poor house on $28k a year, then mom certainly isn't living high on the hog raising two kids on the $1k a month dad is providing.

At the end of the day, 3 out of every 10 dollars you earn going to help clothe, feed, educate and provide shelter to your children isn't terribly unfair.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## I Know

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Elegirl,
> 
> I have never heard of child support payments being that high either. The reality is that the money being "awarded" by the courts are a fraction to raise a child. If you are the custodial parent, you without any doubt pay more than the non-custodial person to pay for the children.
> Take a look at the stats about divorce and what happens to women post. If it was all sunshine and glitter, the stats wouldn't be what they are.
> In my case, if my husband decided to divorce me....he would be legally required to pay for his youngest. His eldest is nearly 19 and despite living here, my husband wouldn't have to pay a dime. Not for living expenses, not for college, not for any of it.....just for his youngest UNTIL he turned 18. At that point, forget it legally.
> I find it incredible that some men get so up in arms about child support. I just do.


I think justice has it wrong. Your ex decided to divorce you? He should pay 75%. Husband cheets? should be 100%. Same for females. 

Probly will not get elected on this idea. but there it is.


----------



## I Know

EleGirl said:


> MOre and more today custody is 50/50 or as close to that as possible. And child support is completely gender nutral. They plug the percentage of time a child is with each parent and their income into a software tool. The tool calculates the amount and that's it.
> 
> If the woman earns more, she's as likely to pay support as a man who earns more.


Ele, what happens when at divorce time my spouse and I make 50,000 each. Now she gets laid off. Does she go into debt or does she apply for reduced payments?


----------



## EleGirl

I Know said:


> Sure seems like it. In my state child support includes paying for your kids college, even tho you as a parent would never have done that. You'd never pay for college even if you had stayed married.
> In effect: the court is ordering your kids to college on your dime.
> 
> And funny how Xbox is now considered by the court, something that is essential to raising a kid now. Oh and don't forget the Air Jordans. Can't have a kid growing up w/out those.
> 
> Didn't this used to be America? Land of the free, etc,etc.


what state do you live in? 

Funny... I've never seen a court require parents buy their kids xboxes, air jordans, etc.


----------



## Yardman

I've heard that some states will revoke a non paying spouses driver's license.


----------



## FrankKissel

I Know said:


> Ele, what happens when at divorce time my spouse and I make 50,000 each. Now she gets laid off. Does she go into debt or does she apply for reduced payments?


She would apply for reduced payments. Just like a dad would. It happens all the time in family court.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

I Know said:


> Ele, what happens when at divorce time my spouse and I make 50,000 each. Now she gets laid off. Does she go into debt or does she apply for reduced payments?


If the paying spouse loses their job they can petition the court to have the payments reduced until they find another job.

So the two of you earn the same amount of income. Are your kids with you more than 50% of the time?


----------



## EleGirl

Yardman said:


> I've heard that some states will revoke a non paying spouses driver's license.


Yes they do that. If a person has a court order to pay child support and they do not pay it.. they can get their driver's license revoked and even do jail time.

If they do not pay, usually the tax payers have to pick up the support of their children.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

FrankKissel said:


> It's possible in cases in which dad is pulling down serious coin, but highly, highly improbable in the case cited by OP.
> 
> If she says dad is practically in the poor house on $28k a year, then mom certainly isn't living high on the hog raising two kids on the $1k a month dad is providing.
> 
> At the end of the day, 3 out of every 10 dollars you earn going to help clothe, feed, educate and provide shelter to your children isn't terribly unfair.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No it is not. In fact, I would KILL for that arrangement. As it is, we are both married and have two kids. One in college and another in middle school. I cannot imagine having the law tell me that I didn't have to pay for my college age son because of his age. I only had to pay for my middle school child and my income was reduced by 20%. When he turns 18, my legal requirement to pay for him is over. What a deal!!! I simply cannot imagine a person who b!tches about this. I just cannot.


----------



## EleGirl

I Know said:


> I think justice has it wrong. Your ex decided to divorce you? He should pay 75%. Husband cheets? should be 100%. Same for females.
> 
> Probly will not get elected on this idea. but there it is.


Divorce is not a criminal action... it's a civil action. Divorce is not about justice.

And what happens when one spouse files for divorce because the other is seriously neglectful or abusive? Do they still have to pay 75% to get free from a bad situation?

It's very hard to prove adultery in a court of law. EA's would not count at all. To prove a PA there would be need of photos of the cheating couple having sex. Those pictures are going to be impossible to get.

If your idea went into affect, there would be a booming business for fake evidence since every divorcing spouse would be trying to accuse each other of adultery.


----------



## Yardman

EleGirl said:


> Yes they do that. If a person has a court order to pay child support and they do not pay it.. they can get their driver's license revoked and even do jail time.
> 
> If they do not pay, usually the tax payers have to pick up the support of their children.


I can see some spouses paying up when threatened with loss of a driver's license. Can also see others saying no biggie. Kinda feel bad if someone is getting caught up, but has license revoked and loses job due to lack of transportation. Sounds like a lose-lose deal to me. Same thing for jail time.

Maybe the major determining factor on punishment is whether the spouse is refusing to pay or is unable to pay? IDK


----------



## EleGirl

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Elegirl,
> 
> I have never heard of child support payments being that high either. The reality is that the money being "awarded" by the courts are a fraction to raise a child. If you are the custodial parent, you without any doubt pay more than the non-custodial person to pay for the children.
> Take a look at the stats about divorce and what happens to women post. If it was all sunshine and glitter, the stats wouldn't be what they are.
> In my case, if my husband decided to divorce me....he would be legally required to pay for his youngest. His eldest is nearly 19 and despite living here, my husband wouldn't have to pay a dime. Not for living expenses, not for college, not for any of it.....just for his youngest UNTIL he turned 18. At that point, forget it legally.
> I find it incredible that some men get so up in arms about child support. I just do.


The reason he does not have to pay anything for the 19 year old is that neither of you are obligated by law to support the 19 year old. 

IN my case i'm lucky in that my 22 year old son still lives with me while in college. And his father is paying his tuition and books. 

As much as I can complain about my ex, I am grateful that he paid child support on time... whild grumbling the whole time but he paid it. I never went back to court to have it raised even after his income went up to close to 300K. Just was not worth going to court again. 

And you are right, I paid much more as the custodial parent than the 800 per month he was court ordered to pay in support.


----------



## FrankKissel

EleGirl said:


> It's very hard to prove adultery in a court of law. EA's would not count at all. To prove a PA there would be need of photos of the cheating couple having sex. Those pictures are going to be impossible to get.
> 
> If your idea went into affect, there would be a booming business for fake evidence since every divorcing spouse would be trying to accuse each other of adultery.


And what kind of piece of human filth would want to deny his/her children financial support because their mom or dad cheated?
Is that justice?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

Yardman said:


> I can see some spouses paying up when threatened with loss of a driver's license. Can also see others saying no biggie. Kinda feel bad if someone is getting caught up, but has license revoked and looses job due to lack of transportation. Sounds like a lose-lose deal to me. Same thing for jail time.
> 
> Maybe the major determining factor on punishment is whether the spouse is refusing to pay or is unable to pay? IDK


Revoking the driver's license makes no sense since the person then cannot get to work.

A lot of people do not realize that if their financial situation changes they can go to court to ask for the payments to be lowered. They just stop paying and then get in trouble, end up with a huge debt, lose their license and end up in jail.


Then there are the ones who constantly skip between jobs so that they can avoid paying.. all the while building up debt.


I think that child support is necessary.. but like so many things to day the system seems to be broken and a lot of people get caught up in the mess.

A nephew of mine paid his support. But the state got it mixed up. So they suspended his license and he spent a few months in jail. Then when he got out he had to hire an attorney to fight to get credit for what he did pay. This is the kind of mess that is going on.

The number of divorces in this country is bringing our court and welfare system to their knees.


----------



## EleGirl

FrankKissel said:


> And what kind of piece of human filth would want to deny his/her children financial support because their mom or dad cheated?
> Is that justice?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Very good point.

But some people do want to deny their children support. The level people will stoop to never ceases to shock.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

EleGirl said:


> The reason he does not have to pay anything for the 19 year old is that neither of you are obligated by law to support the 19 year old.
> 
> IN my case i'm lucky in that my 22 year old son still lives with me while in college. And his father is paying his tuition and books.
> 
> As much as I can complain about my ex, I am grateful that he paid child support on time... whild grumbling the whole time but he paid it. I never went back to court to have it raised even after his income went up to close to 300K. Just was not worth going to court again.
> 
> And you are right, I paid much more as the custodial parent than the 800 per month he was court ordered to pay in support.


Of course I am not legally obligated to pay for his education. Morally? Different story. 
My point is for every single person here moaning about child support, you cannot even imagine what the REAL cost is to raise a child through college. $800 a month? Not even close. Your ex got off with a cake walk.


----------



## Anubis

A couple things you need to know here. 

First is that Child Support laws, statutes and enforcement varies from state to state. In MA for Example, The 'college loophole' can be used to collect child support from the NCP (Non custodial Parent) until the child is 26 years old.. even if the child isn't enrolled in college most of the time. Twenty. Six. Years. Until this last year, MA was one of the worst state to get divorced in because it was so anti-remarriage. The new wife could have her income garnished to pay lifetime alimony to her husband's ex-wife. (Men's groups had been trying to change it forever, it took a 'woman's coalition' of second wives to get the laws revised, funny that)

Second thing to know is that child support collections and enforcement is a big business for the states because of the matching funds they get from the Federal Government. The incentive for them is NOT to get it right in terms of fairness, but to maximize collections. They don't care as long as they get paid.

In most states, the NCP is compelled by the state to provide insurance for all of the children. (the state doesn't like having them go on welfare, etc) Like the college example, it is a case where when you are divorced there is a gun to your head (threat of legal action) for not providing something that wouldn't be there if you were married and were out of work, etc.

As you well know, there are no controls for making sure that Child support is actually used for the child's needs, as I know from personal experience.

/Pays $2,400 for 2 kids, little of which seems to go to the kids needs, and the ex- is constantly trying to cause trouble and deny visitation. She has also stated she believes she is due $7K a month in lifetime alimony, as well as full paid insurance from me. Too bad for her it doesn't work that way. Instead she suddenly found a new guy to marry just when her alimony ended.


----------



## EleGirl

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Of course I am not legally obligated to pay for his education. Morally? Different story.
> My point is for every single person here moaning about child support, you cannot even imagine what the REAL cost is to raise a child through college. $800 a month? Not even close. Your ex got off with a cake walk.


Yes he did get off with a cake walk. Yet the whole time he complained that I was robbing him.. while he got to the point where he earns 300K a year using the MD degree that I paid for and supported him through.


My ex never understood how much it cost to raise his son. Even when he were together, even after he joined a medical practice, he refused to give money towards clothing and other things our son needed. I had to use my money for everything. AT least now he's paying college tuition.


----------



## EleGirl

Anubis said:


> A couple things you need to know here.
> 
> First is that Child Support laws, statutes and enforcement varies from state to state. In MA for Example, The 'college loophole' can be used to collect child support from the NCP (Non custodial Parent) until the child is 26 years old.. even if the child isn't enrolled in college most of the time. Twenty. Six. Years. Until this last year, MA was one of the worst state to get divorced in because it was so anti-remarriage. The new wife could have her income garnished to pay lifetime alimony to her husband's ex-wife. (Men's groups had been trying to change it forever, it took a 'woman's coalition' of second wives to get the laws revised, funny that)
> 
> Second thing to know is that child support collections and enforcement is a big business for the states because of the matching funds they get from the Federal Government. The incentive for them is NOT to get it right in terms of fairness, but to maximize collections. They don't care as long as they get paid.
> 
> In most states, the NCP is compelled by the state to provide insurance for all of the children. (the state doesn't like having them go on welfare, etc) Like the college example, it is a case where when you are divorced there is a gun to your head (threat of legal action) for not providing something that wouldn't be there if you were married and were out of work, etc.
> 
> As you well know, there are no controls for making sure that Child support is actually used for the child's needs, as I know from personal experience.
> 
> /Pays $2,400 for 2 kids, little of which seems to go to the kids needs, and the ex- is constantly trying to cause trouble and deny visitation. She has also stated she believes she is due $7K a month in lifetime alimony, as well as full paid insurance from me. Too bad for her it doesn't work that way. Instead she suddenly found a new guy to marry just when her alimony ended.


Now that's a lot of stuff that does seem unfair.

I can see an divorce agreement that the parents pay tuition, books, etc. But that i only gets paid if the kid is actually in school and passing.


----------



## tobio

I am in the UK. I have two kids with my ex (we weren't married.) Here unmarried there are two choices, either a mutual arrangement which is the encouraged option, or through the Child Support Agency or whatever they're called now. Married I believe child maintenance is arranged as part of the divorce settlement. The basic formula is IIRC 15% of the non-resident parent's wages for one child and 20% for two or more children. Therexare departures depending on if the non-resident parent earns less than a certain amount per week, has children living with them by a new partner, pays child maintenance elsewhere as well, is self-employed etc.

I personally have never found the child maintenance has "punished" my ex. He has generally paid what works out to be £15 per child per week through a mutually arranged agreement. He subsequently married and is getting divorced and cannot afford to pay us anything and we will get less later as his money will be divided by 3 children.

Having said that, I have a friend who's husband had a child prior to their marriage. He was ordered to pay such an amount that it crippled them and they ended up not eating so they could feed their own children. Scandalous. So it goes both ways.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ten_year_hubby

EleGirl said:


> MOre and more today custody is 50/50 or as close to that as possible. And child support is completely gender nutral. They plug the percentage of time a child is with each parent and their income into a software tool. The tool calculates the amount and that's it.
> 
> If the woman earns more, she's as likely to pay support as a man who earns more.


Exactly. This is the "new normal". Obviously, a lot of time and effort is required by both parents in this arrangement. If one or the other is not doing their share, the court may be inclined to make up for the deficit with money


----------



## Kobo

A hit man is cheaper just use one from out of town
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DTO

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Of course I am not legally obligated to pay for his education. Morally? Different story.
> My point is for every single person here moaning about child support, you cannot even imagine what the REAL cost is to raise a child through college. *$800 a month? Not even close. Your ex got off with a cake walk.*


Really? How so?

Her ex paid $800 a month - a good chunk of change. Now mom needs to step in and pay up a fair share of her own money to support their child. She is not entitled to have 100% of the cost of raising the child paid by her ex. Let's not forget that dad here probably had their child a good chunk of time and incurred his own expenses. But, even if that was not the case, neither parent is entitled to a free financial ride for the child; you had a child, get some skin in the game and pay at least a little bit.

I totally support both parents being financially responsible for the children. And, unfortunately, sometimes court action is needed to make sure the child is provided-for. But sometimes blind application of rules designed more for expediency (IMO) than fairness leave folks with a bad taste in their mouths.

For example, here in CA a parent could have a 50% custody share and still have to pay child support to the lower-earning parent. And that's in addition to any spousal support ordered by (again) a straight formula. THOSE kinds of rules are why people cry foul.


----------



## Dexter Morgan

The way I see it, child support may be more than what it takes to support the child, but it based on state calculations should be well enough to take care of them and then some.

My child support is to provide the things my kids need just as if they were living in my house.

Now its more than it would have cost me if they lived under my roof, and I think the whole idea of raising the mother's income by that much to take care of the children is kind of BS, but I won't protest too much.

Unless its clear my money isn't going for their well being. And thats the part that sucks. My x-wife can use my money to go on trips or buy things for herself. Things I know she wouldn't be able to get on her own. But as long as my kids have clothes and are eating, the courts don't care.

I look forward to the day my kids turn 18. Then her gravy train is over.

And before anyone chimes in and says child support isn't enough or isn't gravy train, my X not only gets $1,200 a month to take care of them(plenty for food and clothes for a year), I have to pay half of their extra curricular costs, half of unpaid health care bills, half of school supplies, and half of daycare. On top of that I have to pay the premiums for their healthcare. 

All things that should give me peace of mind that my kids are well taken care of, she just better be taking care of them.

My kids don't come near to consuming $1,200/month in clothes and food and she gets to do whatever she wants with the balance.

Then I hear the whole argument that they have to provide a roof over their head. Well so do I when they come to see me. So thats a wash.


----------



## Dexter Morgan

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Correct me if I am wrong but isn't CS based on a percentage of the non-custodial parents income? So say they pay $1200 a month for two kids, it is because that spouse can afford to pay it.


I pay exactly $1,200 per month. I can't say I can exactly afford it. It helps her live much better and me not so much.

No sense in complaining though. Its suppose to be for the kids and when they turn 18, there will be a reversal of fortune.





> If they are making only $1200 a month, it would be something like $200 a month. I don't see this as punishment at all. In fact, try raising a child or two on child support. I see countless people who struggle to do so and the only ones who really lose out are the kids.


In my state its 20% of a non-custodial parents income minus taxes and other mandatory payments. 28% for 2 kids.

But then again, its customary for the non-custodial parent to also end up paying half for other expenses on top of it, kind of making the term child support less meaningful. So in the end, for my 2 kids, it ends up being more like 40% of my income. Try giving up nearly half of your income and see how "affordable" it is.


----------



## I'mInLoveWithMyHubby

Absolutely not. It cost an average 1,000 a month to raise one child. I asked for 200 a month, which was way too little. I didn't want to depend on the initial income and I fully regret not asking for his fair share. It's too late now, my daughter is almost 18. My ex has done nothing, but cause trouble and grief for my child. He emotionally ruined her and is very proud of it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Dexter Morgan

I'mInLoveWithMyHubby said:


> Absolutely not. It cost an average 1,000 a month to raise one child. I asked for 200 a month, which was way too little. I didn't want to depend on the initial income and I fully regret not asking for his fair share. It's too late now, my daughter is almost 18. My ex has done nothing, but cause trouble and grief for my child. He emotionally ruined her and is very proud of it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And thats a damn shame. The fathers that care pay through the nose, like me, but don't complain much because we want to see them taken care of.

I'm sorry that has happened to you and your daughter.


----------



## LBG

Indiana is based on both incomes and credit is given for time with the child. My child support is only $61.95 a week, hardly enough to get rich off of but at the same time I think it's fair. I carry all of the insurance and the NCP pays nothing unless our co-pays exceed $367 a year, and then he pays 50%. Thankfully I do not have to pay any healthcare premiums and co-pays are low. I've never taken him back to raise his child support either. Indiana also gives a credit for additional children born after the divorce as well as if there is another child support obligation ordered. We also alternate years on our tax return. The child is now 13 years old and mine and the NCP's agreement is that I won't raise it as long as he helps with the extras (school clothes, shoes, sports equipment), we split it 50%. He'd much rather do that then me raise his support because he's making considerably more now than he was 6 years ago. Indiana will also place a lien on vehicle titles for failure to pay your support. I don't know, our arrangement seems fair to both of us and neither of us feel taken advantage of this way. He'll continue to be ordered child support until the child graduates college, but if the child fails to go to college then his support ends when he graduates high school. I'm happy with how it stands and I am very fair with visitation as well. He's not the enemy in my mind and we're doing the best to raise our child fairly and be respectful of one another.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Dexter Morgan

LBG said:


> Indiana is based on both incomes


And that is the way it should be. Unfortunately, men get the shaft in most states.

My x-wife has taken anything I have given her much above and beyond that which can take care of my kids and has being going on several vacations a year, while I have to scrape to get by.

She is gonna crash hard when her gravy train is not there any more. Thats the only thing that keeps me smiling.


----------



## inurf8c

I agree that both parents should provide for their children. I personally don't think that child support should hinder the non-custodial parent from being able to provide for themselves. 

It is sad to say that I've seen females use child support as the basis of their income. Those females are capable of working however, tend to be lazy and are too comfortable with being dependent on others (including state programs) to take care of them.

I know a current situation where the couple is separated. The father (non-custodial parent) is active in his (3) children lives. The custodial spouse is requesting $2100 for child support and car payment. The non-custodial spouse pays mortgage, phone, cellphone (himself and custodial parent), credit cards for himself and custodial parent, insurance (himself and custodial parents), and all other bills. Her request equals to a full paycheck which is half of the non-custodial parent's monthly income. With that in mind, the custodial parent's pays a mortgage of $1350, and all bills. The custodial parent is capable of working. I personally think this trifling.

I personally would request to become the custodial parent and not request any child support from the non-custodial parent. If I can provide for three children and a spouse who doesn't work nor go to school at all, then why would I ask for it. However, the way society is today custodial is always granted to the female unless go can prove them to be unfit which again I think is wrong.


----------



## Coffee Amore

This thread is from two years ago. If you want to start a new thread of your own, please do. I'm closing this old thread since the original poster has long since disappeared.


----------

