how do you think child support should be figured out?
MOST HELPFUL POSTS
Rosie - posted on 04/02/2010
i have 2 reasons why i don't think that it is necessary other than the ones i stated before. first i was never married to my ex, therefore his income i and my child would've never had access to. second, i believe the responsibility of a child should be mandaded by law to be 50/50. not 100/0 or 3/97. i don't think if the woman makes a shit ton more than her ex that she should be obligated to pay more for her child while she has no court ordered support and the child lives with her, so why should a man have to who makes more than his ex? like i said before, he can surely buy for his child what he wants, but actual mandated support should be 50/50 based on what the child needs-not wants.
Rosie - posted on 04/02/2010
i guess i see it as they both should be providing the roof over the child's head, so whether she would have the place or not is irrelevant, both should be putting a roof over the childs head and since most of the time people that pay support don't have custody they obviously don't put a roof over their childs head. i think it's the main thing that a person needs to pay for their child.
i see the point that that is life that a rich kid gets more money, i just don't think it works very well that way. $50 dollars is not enough for your child, and $2000 is just crazy. if the rich dadddy wants to embellish his kid with gifts than by all means he can, but to mandate it by law seems crazy to me. i feel alot of that money would be used for mommy to get her nails done or something stupid after all of the child's needs are taken care of. there's no way a child needs $2000 a month, we barely take home $2000 a month and we have 3 kids.
Jackie - posted on 04/02/2010
Teresa, no the original kid shouldn't necessarily be any less important, but neither should child #2 and #3. ALL of the kids should be considered equally...if you stay married and accidently get pregnant with #2 and #3...you are basically saying they shouldnt' matter until #1 is taken care of - I DON'T THINK SO! All of a persons kids deserve equal consideration, which means you need to consider the expenses of the 2nd and 3rd child when figuring out how much can be given to your ex for the first one.
And yes Holly I know sometimes it is the mom paying support, it's just so infrequent its easier for terms of typing to refer to dad...but I do mean whoever ends up having to pay the support.
Jackie - posted on 04/01/2010
It should not be a set payment, b/c everyone's circumstances are different. It should also NOT AT ALL be by the absent parent...that's ridiculous, what if they make a ton of money, why should they give it all to their ex. I have seen several cases where the money while is meant for the KID, doesn't go to the kid at all.
I think an estimation of cost should have to be created for the child in question, not by the mother, by the mother AND father AND agreed upon by the court based on standard cost allowances for certain things. And then from there if the father can't afford all of that figure out a pro-ration...but why should a healthy kid, who plays no sports, hardly eats anything, goes to public schools, and does not extra-curricular act. be looked at the same as a motivated kid whose into 5 sports, goes to private school, has braces etc etc
Hard for me to really express my thought in a paragraph, but in short by basing it on the absent parents income it is purely just to screw that person. If its child support the payment shouldnt' be a penny more than what is needed to support the specific child in question.
and one other HUGE issue I have with the system is that it doesn't consider all the other financial obligations of the parent paying support....they assume that child support is there only bill...which is TOTALLY wrong. Any other payment you get yourself into (car, home etc) they want to know what your monthly expenses are...this should be no different.
Just b/c a guy was married to a useless lazy chic and they lived in an apt doesn't mean that he didn't shape up, get remarried, buy a house, get a nice car, and have 2 kids of his own and have alot more responsibility now....his other financial responsibilities shouldn't have to suffer "just because".
OK, enough for now...i'm sure I have made enough enemies at this point.
Erin, full time minimum wage (which is pretty much all I would ever qualify to make) would bring in about $1500/month. The cheapest STUDIO I could find when I was looking for a regular place for me and my 3 children to live was $700/month. I would've taken it too if I could've fit my girls bunk beds in it.... I don't think I could find a 2 bedroom place (other than where I currently live) for under $1200... and that would be pushing it. My son won't be able to have his own room until his sisters move out. So... he'll be sharing a room w/ Mommy til he's at LEAST 12 (which is when the girls turn 18)... THAT is our reality, but since my ex currently owes just under $10,000 and will never pay any child support this isn't my argument to make.
And if I didn't have kids, sure I would still need a place to live, but living in a $700/month studio is a lot different w/ one person than it would be w/ 4.... or even 2 when you consider that the kid needs his/her own bed.
Krista - posted on 04/02/2010
I'm going to use male pronouns for the absent parent, just for clarity's sake.
Yes, it should be based on income.
If the father were still married to the mother, he would be expected to contribute his share towards the kids' expenses, such as food, clothing, their activities, any school or daycare expenses, medical and dental bills, gas costs for trucking the kids around to their activities and social engagements, etc. etc. And, when the family income is higher, parents tend to spend more on these things, and a certain standard of living is established for the child.
He would have been paying X amount towards the child's care when married, so why should that amount drop at all when the couple splits?
Suzette - posted on 04/02/2010
Erin, what if the couple had 5 kids, not just 1 or 2, and that woman had to find a place to live based on just her income because the state was doing it the way you're proposing? A 4 bedroom is a whole lot more expensive than a 1 bedroom and it's not something that a single woman would get for herself. It's not right to let the father go scott free in that situation, or in any situation when it comes to providing housing for their child. When they're together he's helping to provide shelter for the child, why not when they're not together?
I disagree with the all the same amt...because in LIFE rich kid gets more money and poor kid gets less, that is LIFE! So no I don't think that poor kid is WORTH less, but his parent is unable to support him off of his $12,000/yr income as someone who made $120,000/yr. I also realize that a child needs a place to live my only thing is that Momma needs a place to live as well, so whether she had kids or not she'd STILL need a place to live, so I don't see the point? I suppose if you're talking about support for more then 1 kid and you need more space then I get that, but I don't think having a 2bdrm is ungawdly expensive to assume that you can pay your own way for that.
Rosie - posted on 04/02/2010
i don't think child support should necessarily go by the persons income. i think it's ridiculous that richer people have to pay a certain percentage of their income (at least in my state it goes by your income) whilst poorer people pay lower. it seems ridiculous to me that a kid would get $2000 dollars a month because his dad is rich while another kid gets $50 a month cause his dad is poorer. i think support should be set the same for each child (unless they're all from the same mother, than it would go down for #2 , #3 etc.) at about $250 a month.
i always hear people (mostly men) bitching about how they don't want their money going towards things other than just the kid. like just kids clothes or just kids school stuff or whatever. i find that completely silly. the kid needs a place to live, uses electricity, uses water, uses food. obviously the support goes towards the things the kid needs like that.
i don't think that one kid from one family costs more than another kid from another family. i just thought of cost of living factored into my price of $250 for each kid. where i live there isn't a very high cost of living so that would suffice for me, someone in california or hawaii or something would need more since it costs more too live in those places.
Why is that messed up though? I have 3 kids, so 3/4 of my rent, utilities, gas, food, household supplies (except MY personal items) are all to support them. Trust me $1000/month (which is what I am supposed to get) would barely pay my rent and utilities unless I had additional assistance.... and that's in low income housing. If I lived anywhere else here.... $1000/month wouldn't even pay for a one bedroom place.
In my case though Jackie... I HAVE child #2 and #3. :)
I agree w/Jackie that child #6 is just as important as child #1; on that note i do think that only BIOLOGICAL children, or adopted, be considered in that arrangement. I'm sorry if Daddy (whoever) hooks up with someone with a half a litter, but I don't necessarily think that they should be considered...I know they have to be taken care of and yadda yadda yadda, but theoretically those children all ready have 2 parents for that job, therefore i do not think it should also then become the responsibility of the step-parent when step-parent has other kids they need to pay for.
California sounds like they have a good system! Teresa, I know my mom had issues with Dad getting paid under the table. You can let the court know, but I'm sure most employers that follow this practice have ways of covering it up...my mom NEVER got anything extra through my dad regardless of her knowledge of his unreported earnings. its a damn shame, but I don't know what a person can do???
Oh, and i don't think that the parent recieving support should have soo much so they don't have to work...that does sound crazy! The support is for the KID NOT the mom! my husband's mom got support for 3 boys, and occasionally for him, and she used it to pay the bills and stuff...the kids had clothes and what not, but i don't think it was right...she didn't work and always lived off of other men...i almost think that there should be some way of controlling the $ so it goes for the kid? maybe have a certain amt. for clothes, extra curricular activites, allowance? IDK??? I just think it's a little messed up when it goes to paying for bills & car payments...I know those things are important, but i don't see where its ok that Dad (whoever) has to pay all of their bills & support but the support goes to paying the other parents bills??? Doesn't make sense!
In California, child support is based on the incomes of BOTH parents. Both parties fill out an income and expense report and turn it in to the judge. On that report, each parent fills out how much they make and how much their expenses are for an average month. The sheet also asks how much each parent thinks the other parent makes and what each parent thinks is a reasonable amount of support. All this information goes before the judge and he or she makes hte final decision. Of course, there is an average amount that usually gets awarded ($400 per child), but that is not always the case. It can be more, and it can be less. Also, people abuse it all the time, which is why there is a spot on the form for each parent to put what they THINK the other parent makes and spends. If the claimed difference is great enough the court will investigate and figure out if one party is lying about their income and/or expenses.
Also, if the parents can agree on a support amount without the court's intervention then that agreement is used and the judge could care less about the income and expense report.
Another thing is it is NOT always the father who pays support. In California, the parent with the least custody pays support to the parent with the most custody. For example, my husband and I have our oldest (my stepdaughter) 90% of the time and as a result her biological mother pays (or at least is supposed to pay) child support to us. I also know a father here in CA who has 60% custody and his ex-wife pays him BOTH alimony AND child support (she always made the most amount of money in their relationship and he was a stay-at-home dad after their child was born).
I think CA has a fairly good system for figuring it out. Sure, some people get completely shafted, but for the most part I think it's pretty good.
And just because some lazy excuse for a human being walks out on his pregnant wife and 2 little girls doesn't mean he should get off scot free simply because he works under the table and lives in a house that his sleazy girlfriends brother OWNS.
And why are the man's first kids now any less important because he has new kids? He should think about his original obligations before creating any new lives.
Jackie - posted on 04/01/2010
Yes Erin, I didn't mean that he needed to be driving a 75K car or anything, but if he is living a good upper middle class life with his new wife/family...none of that should have to suffer so ex mommy can sit at home and not work and just live off his money..thats what i was getting at.
I agree with Jackie that Dad's circumstances should be taken into consideration when dietermining his support payments...He should be able to provide a roof over his head, food on the table, etc. but I don't necessarily think that if he is paying an inflated amount to have an expensive new car that he should get a break for that, esp. if momma's driving a 15 yr old beater! You know, kinda the same way DSHS does but probably not soo strict... I also agree with Theresa in the sense that both ppl's circumstances should be considered! No one person should be going broke because TWO people had a kid together!! And with that, if there are other kids, Dad moved on got remarried and has HIS OWN kids w/new mommy, then he should not be paying more in support then he is able to also give to the child who lives with him. So in that case they should look at it as if he was paying support for his resident children as well as his non-resident children.
Here it goes by both parents income and the physical custody situation (whether one parent has full or if they share joint). I think that's fair. If they have joint custody, but one parent has 4 times the income.... of course he/she should still help the other parent out some. It's for the KID. :)
Brandy - posted on 03/31/2010
I think it should be based on income and one thing I don't understand is when the man has equal custody or more custody than the mom, he still has to pay her unless she has no custody at all. I think that's ok until a certain age if they have agreed she should stay home and not work but otherwise, why should he keep paying her when he has the child for just as much time or more.
Join Circle of Moms
Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.Join Circle of Moms