I frequently read and hear anecdotes about non-custodial parents (usually fathers) being ordered to pay outrageously high child support – amounts that are impossible for anyone with an ordinary income to afford. No doubt some of these anecdotes are exaggerated, but I’m convinced that some are not. Unaffordable child support payments don’t benefit anyone – not even the children – and should not be imposed. Furthermore, some measures to help non-custodial parents pay child support – such as a tax deduction of some sort – would be reasonable.
However, some men’s rights activists (MRAs) use rhetoric which suggests that child support payments are often or typically outrageously high, or that child support has made single motherhood a profitable situation for women. Neither claim is true.
According to a recent U.S. Census Bureau report (pdf link), the median child support payment in the U.S. is $280 a month. The average child support payment is a little higher – $350 a month. That’s a noticeable amount – similar in scope to payments on a new car – but it’s hardly the crushing, slavery-like burden some MRAs seem to describe child support as.
Although the Census Bureau report doesn’t provide detailed income breakdowns, what information it has indicates that child support amounts are sensitive to income. For instance, among fathers who are below the poverty line, the median child support payment is $125 a month, compared to a median of $300 a month for those above the poverty line.
So despite the terrible anecdotes that we hear (and if you think about it, it’s those who are mistreated by the system who are going to talk about their experiences the most often), the evidence shows that typical child support payments are not ridiculously high. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be concerned about those outliers who are being ordered to pay unaffordable amounts of child support; however, I think the weight of the evidence suggests that while the system may need some tweaking, on the whole it’s not broken.
* * *
So the typical child support payment is $280 a month – put another way, half of custodial parents who receive child support get $280 a month or less. How does that compare to the costs of raising a child?
Again, the federal government compiles some good statistics on this (pdf link). For a single parent with an income of about $17,500, raising a single child for 17 years will cost about $10,125 a year, or $840 a month.
Of course, a single parent who earns $17,500 a year is pretty poor. What about single parents who aren’t poor? For better-off single parents – those earning an average of $65,000 a year – raising a single child for 17 years will cost almost $21,600 a year, or a little over $1,800 a month.
All told, the typical child support payment in the USA covers much less than half the expense of raising a child. Custodial parents – usually mothers – are taking on not only the majority of the work involved in childrearing, and the majority of the opportunity costs – they’re taking on the majority of the cash expenses, as well.
Therefore, I’d support a two-tiered reform to child support. Child support payments should be made more sensitive to individual situations, so that noncustodial parents are not saddled with irrational and impossible-to-pay child support orders, as has happened in some outlier cases. At the same time, typical child support payments are simply too low, compared to the cost of raising a child; therefore, most non-custodial parents should have their child support obligations increased. (This will also have the side benefit of reducing unwed motherhood.)
NOTE FOR COMMENTS: Please don’t post about how you have an income of $500 a month and the judge ordered you to pay $2000 a month in child support to your ungrateful lazy ex-spouse who spends all the child support money on dresses she can wear to the track and she earns more than you do anyway and the judge won’t even reply to your motions. Unless I know both you and your ex-spouse, and can verify for myself that she’d tell me the same version of events that you’re telling me, I don’t think anecdotal evidence of that sort is more useful than the federal data.
Well Erica, I know exactly how to balance my budget and encumber the correct amount to sustain my family for a month. As far as utilities and monthly reoccurring bills go: total amount divided by let’s say four. It’s not rocket science, why do you think the courts request each party to show their monthly bills? I did eventually get 50/50 custody, but it did not change the cs amount, because I was not the CP, and that’s how it goes in the real world. Would you give up your CP seat and step in the NCP’s shoe, I bet you wouldn’t, along with an endless array of excuses why not. I offered to raise my daughter without asking for support, I was refused because of my gender. Bottom line is that the CSU system is a mess for both sides, if this system was so great, we wouldn’t be on this forum…
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0568.pdf
Right, but what I’m saying is that as long as a CP spends an amount equal to the child support payment in ways that benefit the child, and comply with any legal agreement that exists, it’s none of the NCP’s business how much the CP spends on what.
Maybe an example will help.
Pat and Lindsey get divorced. Lindsey has custody of their one child and Pat pays $300 a month in child support. Lindsey spends $300 a month on groceries (including not just food but toiletries, etc.). So call that $150 on the kid. It costs $250 more a month to rent a two-bedroom house than a one-bedroom house would cost, and an additional $100 in utilities. Lindsey spends another $100 a month on kid-related transportation. So before a single school supply or video game or winter coat is purchased for the child, Lindsey is spending at least twice the amount of the child support payment on the child.
If Pat got to look at Lindsey’s expenditures, Pat might complain about the fact that Lindsey goes out to dinner with friends every week, or buys a lot of movies and CDs, or whatever. But Pat’s opinion on Lindsey’s discretionary spending is *completely irrelevant* because the child’s needs are being met and the child support–and then some–is being spent on the child.
When average child support is less than half of what a poor family spends per child, and about 1/9 of what a middle class family spends, if a CP isn’t spending *at least* twice the child support payment on their kids, then it seems pretty likely either the support order is unusually high or the child is being neglected. If the kid is actualy being neglected, you should not have to look at the CP’s bank statements to figure that out (nor would it actually tell you, since a grocery bill isn’t broken down by who ate what).
Absent any actual evidence of neglect–like letting the child go hungry and spending the support payment on drugs–there’s no reason the NCP needs to know the CP’s finances. For that matter, the CP doesn’t need to know the NCP’s finances either.
As far as an escrow, those aren’t free. If the NCP wants it, they should volunteer to pay all the fees and any associated expenses. It shouldn’t come out of the NCP’s pocket or the support payment itself.
At one point when I was newly divorced my ex said he wished we’d done 5o% of costs not a flat child support amount. that I was lucky, because he knows I’m “coming out ahead on the deal”. Immediately off the top of my head I could give him a few items that added up to more than 2 times his child support. (the kids were in daycare at that time)… he quickly quieted down.
I still stand by my statement that MOST NCP’s complaining about c/s are out of touch with costs.
I read once a man saying there’s no way it costs more than a few hundred a month to have a kid. I am willing to venture he doesn’t spend much time with with his kids at all….
My thing is that I’ve been paying support to my child who is now 19yrs old without any problems, but I’ve recently found out that the mother doesn’t have a support obligation against her, I just went to court to try an get some type of relief because I no longer have a job to pay, they wouldn’t grant me any stoppage to try an countinue to find a job but instead let it keep piling up until I’m arrested and my licsence are suspended, and they wont even go after the mother for support, I just don’t get it, is it me….. P.s. neither one of us has custoday her grandmother does so I guess that’s enough said!!!!
The system suck’s here in California,I just don’t understand why the system does not listen who left who and who cheated.I make 19.00 hr and pay 1200 a month am at the edge becoming homeless but the system does not care.We need to stand up for what correct.
Joel @906: You should contact your county bar association and ask about their referral programs. For about $35 you can talk to a family-law attorney who can give you advice, and you may be able to get referred to a Modest Means or pro bono program to help with your situation.
“The system” in California is not about punishing your ex for leaving you or screwing around. It’s about dividing up your property and figuring out custodial and financial obligations to your children.
How many kids do you have together, Joel?
I am a 36 year old male who resides in lower Pennsylvania. I have two cases and pay between 32% and 42% of my NET in Child support.
Neither of my children’s mothers work but both are able to own their own homes and have new cars (and even a boat) while I reside with family members due to my Child Support obligation oftentimes taking me down to the poverty level where my employer is not able to actually remove the entire ordered amount. I have a High School Diploma, have been with my Employer for 13 years and have worked my way up to 13.00 an hour. They have Associates and Bachelors degrees but choose not to work as they have other small children not yet school age as mine are.
My question is why should my children have to visit me at their great aunts house and experience a much lower quality of life when visiting me when I am the only one in either case who actually works for a living. My children are getting to the age that they do not want to visit due to my living arrangements,
I see both children regularly but am afraid that this will soon cease based on my living situations and their dislike for this.
I work hard, pay all my bills, no drugs or alcohol. No domestic disturbances….
I see my children as often as allowed by the court. I petition for more when I get the money together to appeal but those times are few and far in-between. I cannot cover my own rent, utilities and basic necessities such as food and clothing. I am not able to provide my children any type of “expense” when they visit. My GROSS income is too high for assistance and at times we have to eat smaller meals due to budget concerns. This does not occur at their mothers homes and they resent that I cannot provide such simple luxuries as a movie or going out to eat like they have with their mothers.
One mother took our Child to Disneyland for a week and the other took our child on vacation to CA for two weeks in the past year.
I am bitter, not about supporting my children or how the money is spent. I am bitter that my children have to experience the other side of the spectrum whenever they walk through the door of my (family’s) home. There is a dramatic difference in the quality of life that my children see and experience in the two homes. I simply ask that I be able to provide a good home for them myself when they are over. (2-3 days a week and two overnights each except when they choose not to come over)
What can someone in my situation do to bring themselves up where they can be self sufficient while taking all the necessary steps but being taken for much more than is possible for them to live on?
One family flourishes while the other flounders.
I havent read through all of the posts, but its interesting that @Joel thinks the system is unfair to men in California. I’m a single mom and my son’s father doesn’t want to pay child support for reasons I refuse to try to understand. My son is 17 months old and I have not recieved one penny from him. I filed the case in March of 2011 when my son was born. It took over a year to get to court and then when we got to court, he got a continuance. lol! He pretended that he didn’t know he had to bring his financial paperwork. My child’s deadbeat dad thinks that I’m living on easy street because I’m going through the courts and refuse to beg him for money – he actually told the mediator loudly “She has money!”. I write all that to illustrate that I think the Califfornia system is unfair on mothers. When we were in the courtroom waiting for him to get his continuance, there was a lady there with three kids and she worked. The father was saying that if he paid the calculated child support plus 50% childcare, he would only have about $200 left over after he paid his rent and bills. Then judge, to my shock, ruled that he would only have to pay 35% of the childcare costs. I thought it was appalling because as a mom, we don’t have that option. When my check comes, I pay my rent, my bills, my childcare, buy food and if I don’t have enough, I have to make cuts on food for myself of course, not my little one and then I have to pay half of the electric and pay late fees and things like that, so trust me, the California system is just as unfair to moms as it is to dad – if indeed it is unfair.
I agree with you Chrissy.
When someone refuses to pay, it seems the courts hit a wall.
I pay support on one child in Wisconsin. She is 14 now and I rarely ever get to see her. For the first few years I was paying 17%. But Im a computer programmer and was doing some contract work that paid more than 40 per hour and her checks were over 1000 a month. I told her that wasnt fair and we both agreed to reduce to a fixed amount of 560. Which in my opinion is still too high. She is a admin assistant making 40k per year or more. I presently make about 82k. Im tired of paying this much. But everytime I talk to an attorney they tell me that it could be higher or that there is nothing I can do. My dad paid 200 a month for four of us in the 80s and he was making well over 100k a year! This makes me bitter and angry. Im always struggling with bills. My ex has a new house and a new car and makes half as much as me. And now my daughter is at an age where she doesnt want to see me. FRUSTRATED.
oh my gosh, in my state you’d be paying WAY more than that.
Maybe ask your mom if she thought 200 a month was fair.
I’m confused about the math here. You make 82K, your ex makes 40k. You pay 6720 a year; let’s round it to 7K. In Wisconsin, after taxes, your net income should be around 55K, and you ex’s net income should be around 30K. So, after the child support payments, you should have a net income of around 48K, and your ex should have a net income of 37K. In other words, you’re still keeping 11K more than she is every year.
I don’t know what explains the fact that you are financially struggling while your ex can afford a new car and home, but the child support can hardly be the only factor.
Presumably the ex has a new partner who also earns an income, and Steve does not. (Just a hypothesis, I claim no special knowledge.)
Your inclusion of the words “after taxes” implies that you think Steve gets to pay taxes on his net income. He does not; if he earns 82k he pays taxes on 82k, then transfers 7k to his ex.
The comparison of incomes is illogical, other than in setting support. Steve doesn’t state that he’s a communist, so the fact that he “gets” to keep 11k more than his ex is unworldly. Steve earns 42k more than she does, but has a real income 11k more than she does. He feels like 75% of the value of that premium is going either to the ex (who does not need it in order to support their child) or to the state in unfair taxation. He isn’t wrong about the last one, and he might not be wrong about the first one; hard to say.
All that said, $560 a month doesn’t seem excessive for an NCP earning middle-high five figures.
Robert – I agree that the comparison of incomes is illogical, but Steve was the one who introduced both incomes, and set it up to make it seem like it’s the child support that’s allowing his ex to maintaing a better lifestyle than he does. I pointed out that the figures he provided do not, in and of themselves, demonstrate that.
My inclusion of the words “after taxes” was meant to imply the opposite – I first deducted the taxes, transforming his 82K to 55K, and then deducted the 7K.
Me smart. Me goed kolege.
I’ve been a single mom for 11 years and have never gotten more than $360/month, total, for two children, and for many years it was $280. It’s depressing and outrageous that this is allowed to happen–and be sanctioned by the courts. He feels justified that it is a “fair” amount, because it’s what the courts say he needs to pay. He’s college educated but hasn’t had a job in the 11 years I’ve been a single mom–not even bagging groceries. Nothing. He’s now going back to school to get another degree. And all of this is acceptable? The entire financial burden for two teenagers falls on me, as well as the time and effort. And honestly, after 11 years, I try not to even think about it, because it is so very depressing and disheartening.
I’m not reading any of the comments here–it’s just too much. But I’m sure there are others in my position, and some in much worse positions, and for those moms, I want to say HANG IN THERE. Somehow, it will all have to be okay.
annabella
Steve, why do you feel the amount you pay is unfair? Apparently you’re not paying more than the child-support guidelines in your state require (and possibly much less), and you are spending less time with your daughter because she’s a teenager, not because her mother is interfering with your rights. What you seem to be saying is 1) your dad got away with paying chump change, so you should be allowed to do the same, and 2) child support is not “fair” if the other parent has nicer things than you do.
Annabella, what was his employment behavior like when you were partnered with him and bore him two children?
I was only with him a few years and he was self employed. He made mid to upper 5 figures until I left. Why do you ask? FYI, there’s no way I can afford a lawyer. I just put in a request for modification every three years that the AG allows, and the outcome is always the same. Nothing. It doesn’t get past the mediator. He has no, or very very little, income = he pays the minimum per the state’s guidelines.
I don’t think there’s any resolution. Sometimes, when I can’t keep up with all the bills and school supplies/dues/etc, which is often, and the two jobs I am working are wearing me down, I just need to vent. My problem for “boring his children” I suppose.
OK, so he didn’t have a job when you were with him. So why would you expect him to suddenly go out and get one now?
I am not sure, I guess, what behavior of his it is that you are outraged is being sanctioned by the courts.
I thought he did have a job? Being Self employed is a job, right? What am I missing?
I certainly think of myself as employed.
I do too, but I don’t think of myself as “having a job”. He must be doing SOMETHING to have a child support award; annabella isn’t complaining about not getting paid, she’s complaining that it is set unjustly low. If he’s paying it, he’s getting the money from somewhere. Most likely to me is that he has continued to be self-employed at doing whatever, and hasn’t made very much. But I could easily be wrong about that.
He was gainfully self-employed until 11 years ago.
The state I live in has a minimum amount that anyone has to pay, employed or not. It’s based off the minimum wage, assuming that the average person could swing a job at Wendy’s.
He’s going to college for a second degree, so as far as I know, he has no income. I don’t know how he is coming up with the $360 he is paying, but it might be from his wife, or a savings account I know nothing about, or a rich uncle…I have no way of knowing.
Yes, I procreated with a loser, obviously, who wants neither more time with his children, nor to contribute fairly to their upbringing. Honestly, I know this already. No need to point it out further.
I agreed with Ampersand’s assertion about the need for reform:
“Therefore, I’d support a two-tiered reform to child support. Child support payments should be made more sensitive to individual situations, so that noncustodial parents are not saddled with irrational and impossible-to-pay child support orders, as has happened in some outlier cases. At the same time, typical child support payments are simply too low, compared to the cost of raising a child; therefore, most non-custodial parents should have their child support obligations increased. ”
This resonated with me, and is the reason why I posted.
Best wishes to all of you for peaceful outcomes and happy children.
annabella
50/50 custody(wish I could have more), 2 kids (2 is enough)
60/40 income split, expenses should be split proportionately, right.
I should pay 10% of the kid expenses as support to balance things
I pay 550/mo.
therefore the kids expense should be $5500 month. In reality the expenses are roughly half that amount(including a portion of the rent/utils/etc and daycare). That is why I say the guidelines are too high in PA for 50/50 custody scenarios. We were an average middle class family. Combined income just over 100k gross.
You may say that paying a ~275 overpayment per month is not that much of a problem. My youngest is 2. 16 years x 12 mo x 275 = $52800 net in overpayment. That is significant. That money would have made a nice 529 for my kids.
I sympathize with single parents who don’t get enough support to make ends meet. And I’m not sure how to fix that situation if there is just not enough $ between the two parents. I don’t think child support is the problem in those cases. I know that support varries a good bit between states. I don’t agree that my situation is an outlier in my state atleast.
Why should you pay 10% of expenses? I don’t get that part?
I assume he means that, since he has 60% of the income, he should pay 60% of the expenses. If the kids are with him 50% of the time, then he’s paying for all their stuff then, so that’s 50% of expenses, and so he should pay another 10% to make it even.
If their mother is the one who buys most of their clothes and school stuff and other things, though, then that argument doesn’t apply.
Thank you for the explanation.
In my experience, whichever parent I am talking to at the moment always firmly, even passionately, believes that they are the one paying virtually all those expenses.
Ha! I am not paying for the bulk of my daughter’s expenses of that nature, other than in the sense that my child support is a major element of her mother’s income. So there, your “always” must now be corrected to “almost always”.
Duly noted. :-p
Steve, I’ve gone over your post a few times. I was trying to understand the 10% and how that correlated to the child support.
I don’t think child support is supposed to = that 10%.
A friend of mine pays child support, and then pays 60% of additional items, for him those additional items are Karate and dance lessons, the kids year books, braces, one of them had an expensive class trip to like Washington dc..etc. like extras. I don’t really know how they figure out what is extra and what is part of child support. I do know this is a point of contention for both of them…
I am helplessly confused by all of this rhetoric. I’m sorry, but I think non-custodial parents who complain about the burden of supporting thier children financially are being purposefully closeminded and self-centered.
There is no need for a tiered approach. The way it is done right now is very logical and moral. A percentage of the non-custodial parent’s income plus 1/2 (sometimes less) for extras like chidcare, medical, etc. are taken out. Its not complicated.
If the parents were together, they would ideally both contribute a portion of thier income to expenses. Since they are not, the non-custodial parent contributes a percentage of his or her income to his or her child.
It doesn’t matter if the custodial parent makes a ton of money and the non-custodial parent doesn’t. It doesn’t matter if the non-custodial parent makes a ton and pushes the percentage is such that the custodial parent can live comfortably. The purpose and reasoning behind child support is that we live in a society (THANK GOD!) that obligates parents to take care of thier children financially, whether they think its “fair” or not. All of these “fancy” calculations and justifications of why a parent should pay less, in my humble opinion, are just whiny ways for non-custodial parents to whine about taking care of their responsibilty.
I think that if there is any problem with the system, it is with the lack of enforcement and the snail’s pace at which it moves.
I say its an unfair system. Because its excessive. It doesnt matter how much I HAVE its how much the child needs!!! One child in a small poor economic city in wisconsin where you can live dirt cheap can do very well on 560 per month. I EARNED a college degree and the income I deserve. She doesnt have a college degree. What if I were a janitor? How would that affect things? Would she have a new car and house? I cant have anymore children because I cant afford them!! What about the money that I could have used to invest in MY own future?? The daughter is lazy and spoiled and sits around the house all day and eats and doesnt do anything. So yeah im frustrated. Meanwhile I have to try and make a life for myself and my girlfriend for the past 12 years and we are struggling. Who speaks for her potential children that we will never have because we cant afford. My ex never remarried and has a new car and house. Yet my father put my mother through hell financially and made way more than I and had no degree and sold insurance yet paid peanuts on FOUR kids. I understand this might seem like I dont pay enough but its not like they are living in chicago or milwaukee. Also consider this what about job loss issues? In 2008 I had a contract position expire($50 per hour) and was out of work for 3 months then had to leave my home and go to a bigger more expensive city to find work and live in hotels for 4 months while my house sat empty. I ended up with some credit card debt. Now Im being sued for judgement on some on those and I cant catch up because between my mandatory retirement deduction and my support its hard to pay off creditors. They are seeking a 25% garnishment for credit card debt on top of the child support. Im sorry for ruffling feathers and I realize it could always be worse for me support wise but why in the heck did they go from a guy (my dad in the 80s) paying much less to going imo overboard. Also I hear from so many women that say “I dont get nothin”. That is what is sad. Not seeing how much they can squeeze out of those of us wh0 actually DO pay child support. Its bs.
May I just say to Steve: Holy shit, man. I’m not sure there’s a worse way to represent yourself or try to garner sympathy for your plight than by denigrating your child.
>What if I were a janitor? How would that affect things?
I think if you were a janitor your payment would reflect that. Right?
And I have to agree with Jake. WOW.
You mention 2 kids? Only 1 is “lazy” ?
If Steve is for real, then yeah, wow.
It’s been interesting to me, in the recent re-birth of this thread, to observe how many posters who complain that their non-custodial child doesn’t want to (visit them, live with them part-time, listen to them , etc.) pretty much demonstrate, in their post, why that might be the case.
Steve, you may want to sit down for this breaking news, but sometimes choices you make in the past limit the choices you make in the future. The last time I mentioned on one of these threads that yes, having a previous family whom you still have obligations to might mean that you don’t have the option to have a second (or third, or fourth) family with a new partner, I believe I was accused of the usual stable of man-hating and etc. etc. though I’d say the same to a woman, CP or NCP. But them’s the breaks unless we collectively decide as a society to put a lot more investment into the social safety net in order to spread the cost of caring for and nurturing children around to everyone. So I hope you’re voting for the most progressive candidates on the ballot in every election, and spending some time talking to your neighbors about how Obamacare is not socialim and needs to be improved to become single-payer, and why funding early childhood education is important, and etc. etc.
Ampersand @931: Nice false equivalence.
Elusis @940: Note that Steve’s story keeps changing?
mythago – I admit I’m not tracking the details of Steve’s life. Care to elaborate?
He rarely sees his daughter, yet he knows that she’s doing nothing at all but sitting around the house all day, for one. He’s under financial pressure and garnishment, which is a good reason to seek realignment of support, yet “lawyers” (multiple) have told him there’s nothing he can do. The reason for the unfairness is that even after the ex agreed to cut payments, the ex has a nicer lifestyle than he does, but then it’s because he really just wants to have a new kid with the new girlfriend.
Indeed, indeed.
During the “difficult years” of our relationship, my father was convinced he knew intimate details of how I was spending my time, energy, and child support money, even when we hadn’t seen each other or talked in months. Occasionally he still lapses into that habit and I have to rib him gently until he quits. I’m so glad he figured out how to have a relationship with me without being an asshole.
On the last point, I was just thinking yesterday that this whole “I can’t have a new family because my old family costs me money” line makes me so angry.
Children are not pets.
I have grudging, though minimal, respect for the person who adopts a pet, then decides “this dog is too much of a hassle” or “this cat sheds too much and chases my other cats” and decides to surrender the pet for adoption to someone else (or in this economy, the needle). I can understand that some people feel less anthropomorphic attachment to pets than others do (there’s even psych research on how people view pets and there are definitely different “tribes”) and I certainly greatly appreciate someone who will humanely surrender a pet rather than neglect it, abuse it, dump it, or kill it. I had a cat for a few years, before he vanished, who was so destructive that although I cried over his loss and searched for him for days through shelter after shelter, when it became clear he was gone, I was a little relieved.
But children are not pets.
You can’t say “I don’t like this child very much” or “I’d rather have a child who looks like my current partner than my previous partner” or “parenting this child with my ex is a hassle” and decide you’re done with your obligation to that child because you’d like a different one.
If you dumped your 8-year-old on the side of the road, or tied him to a street sign downtown with a sign saying “free kid,” or took her to a residential facility and said “I don’t want this kid any more; maybe someone else will want her but if not I guess you’ll have to put her down,” you would be widely and correctly regarded as an utter failure as a human being who under no circumstances should be put in charge of any new kids.
The idea that if a previous family is getting in the way of you having a shiny new family because of their inconvenient failure to stop existing and needing support from you when you don’t really like them any more, you are the victim in this situation, is just mind-boggling.
Pingback: Conversations with Single Mothers of Color: Ep. 1 – “Statistics Are Not Our Stories.” | beyondbabymamas
Actually abortion and other forms of autonomous birth control should also be irrelevant. Since males lack autonomous birth control while women do have autonomous control of their reproduction, and since women disproportionately retain custody any law’s based upon the non-custodial parents(fathers) is a defacto Bill of attainder, something outlawed in the constitution(any law designed to target a single person or a single group).
Because women have such final control, the ultimate veto, it put’s men into a unique position as a group due to lack of rights and ability(as even a male who is raped is still liable for child support). This defacto “Bill of Attainder opens boy’s and men up for intentional entrapment and enslavement in violation of the 13 Amendment by any woman who is able to acquire a man’s sperm by any means what so ever. Even if he stored it in a sperm storage for future private use and a crazy ex broke in and stole + did a turkey baster, the male(even a boy about to undergo chemo) would be held financially liable under threat of force and internment by a “Court of Law” to fund someone else’s choice.
We are not debating if a man should or shouldn’t have to support his children, but he should have a choice in the matter. Heck when you add in Paternity Fraud and how if your married, she cheats your still liable for child support it becomes self evident that Child Support is slavery. And all the other injustices(guy’s having thousands upon thousands of dollars stolen{money=survival, food, clothing and shelter) by some chick five states over who got a hold of his social security number with the aid of the courts. Look at what happened to that guy up in New Hampshire. Lost his job in this recession, Judge wouldn’t lower Child Support so it was in excess of his Unemployment check, and when he was arrested the Guards beat him to death. He was labeled a dead beat and it was swept under the rug.
Legislating moral issue’s has only brought pain and suffering to the world. I am sure the southern slave owners and a few southern ministers used moral arguments to justify slavery of African Americans. After all they had children to feed and clothe too.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I don’t understand this sentence at all. Are you saying that men should have to support their children, but should have a choice whether or not to support their children? That’s how I’m understanding the sentence and that makes no sense at all so you must be saying something else. What is it that you’re saying?
I don’t understand how whether or not your wife cheats on you is relevant to whether or not you should support your children. Can you explain this to me?
Have you got any links to the horror stories you related in your comment?
You sound full of compassion for Max’s point of view, Jake Squid!
I think we’ve got a new enforcement sheriff in town. LOL
If there are any real abuses there, they certainly aren’t going to make it through *your* filter. Not on your watch. What’s up with the mocking hatred?
max: It’s very strange that your posts have gone from ‘I just wish my custody/support situation was fair’ to ‘we need a new framework’ to ‘OMG SLAVERY’. That aside, if you got your analysis out of that self-published book you were mentioning a while back, please ask for your $15 to be refunded.
1) A bill of attainder (de factor or otherwise) is not “any law designed to target a single person or a single group”. A bill of attainder is a law declaring a particular person guilty of a crime.
2) Males and females are equally responsible for support of their children by default, regardless of whether they intended to become parents or had the opportunity to prevent pregnancy. There is no “my boyfriend poked holes in the condom so I don’t have to pay child support” exemption for women.
3) Interesting that you should bring up rape, because it seems that female rape survivors in a majority of states have to deal with laws that allow their rapist to use them as a baby factory. Happily, my state is one of the minority that severs rights between rapists – male oR female – and their offspring. If, god forbid, you were raped by a woman, she would not be the legal parent of the child and you would not owe her a dime of child support.
4) A woman who actually stole sperm from a facility is probably going to find herself in the position of “sorry, he’s legally a sperm donor, not a father” – and sperm donors don’t owe child support. I mean, on top of all the criminal charges she faces.
5) Speaking of assisted fertility, turns out that if the woman’s bodily rights are not an issue, she has no right to force a man to become a father, even if he consented to conception and then change his mind.
6) If your wife cheats on you and another man is the biological father, your options depend on your state. If you want to raise the kid as your own, chances are very high that the boyfriend is SOL. If you don’t, well, that presumption of paternity is rebuttable.
7) You really, really don’t understand the history of slavery in the US if you think that financially supporting your own kids is the same thing.
Also, dude, why the scare quotes around ‘court of law’?
Penelope,
I’ve been around since the very beginnings of this blog’s existence. I ain’t exactly new ’round these here parts. And please don’t assign emotions (such as hatred) to my writing.
I find max’s most recent comment to be either so poorly written that it’s incomprehensible or logically flawed – one or the other. I also find myself skeptical of the story about the deadbeat dad beaten to death by the capital G Guards. Pardon me if I don’t take max’s word for it. Perhaps you have a link to a reliable source for that story.
Penelope, I’m a moderator here.
You’ve been acting like a jerk.
Your comments are full of insults and taunts, and you seem less interested in addressing the content of other comments than you are in scoffing at them. Y0ur comment at #947 is only the most recent example. There are plenty of others.
Stop doing that. If you want to be a constructive member of the commentariat, now would be a good time to start.
—Myca
I think comparing child support to slavery is a bit over the top. Although I’m sure my ex would agree with you.
The funny thing, my ex begged for kids. I was the one who waivered on whether “WE” were ready for the responsibly.
I know there are good fathers out there paying child support who probably have a case they are paying too much or are being taken advantage of in other ways.
I think those good fathers should be cautious to not fuel the men who aren’t paying anything thinking they have the support of all paying child support.
Odd. Absent a female actually raping a male – a vanishingly rare event – men have total control over their reproductive capacity. Just don’t have intercourse. I personally do not find this particularly difficult to understand. It can be difficult to practice, but any number of circumstances in this life call upon us to do difficult things in the interest of long-term rewards (or, to prevent long-term problems).
(Please let us not revisit the woman-steals-sperm-from-sperm-bank argument. How often does this happen? Anyway the male is legally protected under this circumstance.)
Thank you, Elusis. Sometimes we get so tangled up in the fight between mommy and daddy (with overtones of feminism, men’s rights, and the lord alone knows what else) that we forget that there are other people involved, people who are entirely innocent and who did not create this unfortunate situation: the children.
Susan, I don’t think that it’s so much forgetting the children, as treating them as a symbol of a relationship. Steve’s “but I want other children, why do I have to support this one” is an example of that mentality: the child is not a person, she’s just an extension of Steve’s relationship with the child’s mother, so when that ends why can’t he discard the child and get one that symbolizes his new, preferred relationship with a different woman?
@Susan & Mythango, I agree with you both.
Also, I think it’s “interesting” that when this topic comes up, there is always a series of very rare occuring red herrings that come up. What if a man is raped? What if the woman stole the man’s sperm? What if? What if? What if? I would bet my next paycheck that the people who bring up these imaginary rare occuring scenarios are not in, nor have ever been in that kind of situation.
Personally, I think they do it to take thier mind off of the sad reality that any person who does not support thier children or who supports them financially, but begrudgingly through force is at his or her core simply lacking in basic moral character. No one wants to believe that about themselves, so they think up scenarios and instances (that they are not in) where thier actions could be justified.
Chattel slavery was never the only type of slavery in the US, debt-slavery and indentured-servitude were also part of the picture. I think ‘income tax = slavery’ is over the top, because it’s not forcing people to work or go to jail, but rather taking money from them if they choose to work. I’m not sure ‘child support = slavery’ is, at least if applied to people with zero assets.
The idea is that equity should defeat an extrinsic fraud.
I have no idea what this means. Can you elaborate and/or clarify?
james, by that argument, all parents are slaves, since they’re not allowed to neglect their children.
I think the original commenter intended to bring up a situation in which one’s wife cheats … and therefore it’s questionable whether a child is one’s biological offspring.
—Myca
Yeah, I think that is probably correct, Myca, but I’m not willing to commit to that given the very fuzzy rest of that comment.
@Jake, it means that since the wife defrauded the husband (re paternity), it would be unfair to make him pay child support, even though he is legally the presumed father of her children.
@Myca, Mythago, Jake Squid
IME, when a man complains about the infidelity-child support conundrum, it doesn’t involve questions of paternity (unless the cheating is closely entwined with a Schwyzer-style cuckolding twist.) Instead, it involves the man thinking, “Hmm, if my wife divorced me for infidelity, she’d receive full or preferential custody with alimony and child support. If I divorced my wife for infidelity, she’d still receive preferential custody with alimony and child support.” When the guy is the one who’s been unfaithful, the courts have no problem with giving the ex her share. When it’s the woman who’s been playing around, the courts have no problem with giving her half.
Guy cheats: he should have kept it in his pants, so what would stop him from losing self-control and turning the kids into crash test dummies for spare change? Woman cheats: she’s just a poor, misguided lamb who’s inability to avoid temptation/willingness to pursue self-gratification shouldn’t be seen as a negative personality trait!
MaMu1977 –
Whatever one thinks about alimony in the case of infidelity and the way the courts work, child support is not money for the mother, it’s money for the children. It should not be in any way tied in to the reasons for the divorce.
But that’s just not true in states with no-fault divorce. At least that’s definitely not true in Oregon. With no-fault divorce, the courts don’t care who did what to who when determining alimony and division of assets. That’s what no-fault is all about.
And according to Wikipedia, “As of October 2010, no-fault divorce is allowed in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.” Probably the specific rules vary from place to place, but still.
—Myca
Isn’t that exactly MaMu’s point.
“Hmm, if my wife divorced me for infidelity, she’d receive full or preferential custody with alimony and child support. If I divorced my wife for infidelity, she’d still receive preferential custody with alimony and child support.”
Regardless of fault the outcome is the same.
Two points, neither of which I 100% support, but I think they have some power.
(1) CS is money for the mother, she owns it and has complete discretion on spending it. It could be legally the child’s and be used in a fiduciary capacity, but that’s not how things have ever worked. That suggestion usually gets very vigorously opposed.
(2) Why shouldn’t CS be tied to reasons for the divorce? The normal way people discharge their support obligation is to raise their child themselves. Surely it matters if someone prevented from doing this, vs just walked off and abandoned the child. If someone is able and willing to raise their child, and the courts stop them, why should they be forced to pay someone else to do the job?
Somehow the children get lost in all these comments.
The median US family income is about $50,000. So for a family of four, if the kid’s expenses are only 1/4 of that, it’s a little over $12,000/year for each kid. So if you have two kids, it’s $24,000. Assume both parents earn the same amount of money, and the non-custodial parent should pay at least $1000/month. It really doesn’t sound like very many people are paying that.
That’s a bare minimum – the real costs of raising a child are higher than that, according to the numbers in the article. Unless your child is living in poverty. Surely that’s not what anyone wants for their kid?
If you have more, if you’re earning $80,000 or $100,000, why wouldn’t you want to spend more than the minimum that your child needs to live on? Parents normally give their children the same standard of living as they have. If you dress your children in rags and buy yourself designer clothing, you’re just a bad parent.
And yes, just as I can’t afford to have five more children, a noncustodial parent who already has two children, may not be able to afford to have more.
There are situations where noncustodial parents get stuck, but so often the complaints sound like parents who don’t want to support their children.
@eytan Zweig
You’re still missing the point. When a husband’s behaviour warrants divorce, the ex-wife gets alimony and child support. When a wife’s behaviour warrants divorce, she… gets alimony and child support. Do you have any idea as to how egregious a woman’s behaviour has to be to avoid that outcome? I don’t know if I’m repeating myself at this point, but I’ve seen women receive custody (and the recurrent cries of “Think of the children and empty your pockets!”) for…
At-fault divorce due to illegal drug use (crystal meth)
At-fault divorce due to RX abuse (benzodiazepines, opiates, etc.)
At-fault divorce due to neglect (eg. leaving the kids with a registered sex offender, because they were disruptive in public and she wanted to go shopping.)
At-fault divorce due to abuse (eg. when Daddy is deployed, Sissy always manages to break an arm or toe, gets black eyes…)
At fault divorce due to infidelity (eg. John logs onto the Internet, visits his wife’s Facebook page and clicks on a message entitled “Remember this? ;)”. The link connects to a woman being made airtight by three guys.)
At-fault due to various combinations (eg. Mommy lets her kids play outside when “Uncle Bob” comes over. Mommy and kids are in North Dakota. Uncle Bob likes to come over during Christmas, when it’s -35F outside.)
When Daddy does dirt, Daddy pays the price. When they’re both even, Daddy pays the price. When Daddy divorces Mommy after she drives into a tree (and the children tell the judge that they don’t like driving with Mommy when she drinks “that green stuff”), and the judge still sees nothing wrong with Daddy giving Mommy fistfuls of cash sans accountability, the injustice is apparent. I know that people can be fucked up, I don’t like the idea that womens’ misbehaviour gets ignored and abetted when it’s time to figure out who pays what.
@MamaD
Your math is flawed.
First things first: median salary ($50,000) minus taxes (depending on state, $10-18,000) is actually about $35,000 a year. Four people in one house can live on $35K a year, four people in two apartments cannot (especially if three of those people are supposed to be “kept” at the same standard of living as prior to divorce.)
Second: different states have different CS guidelines. New York’s CS ranges start at 19% for the first child. If I become a father in New York State, and I’m earning $50,000/year, I have to pay $8500/year in child support. IOW, I take $9500 out of my $34,000 take home pay to take care of my child. I pay out $8500/month of my $2900/month salary, leaving me with $2050/month to pay for rent/utilities/food/transit/etc. This is the reason why I don’t have kids and will never have kids-barring a high 5-figure salary (IOW, anything under $75,000/year), child support in my state is high enough to force me to return to a decidedly lower-class/weekly murders/daily maiming-robbery neighbourhood. Bollocks to that.
@MaMu1977 – I’m not missing the point. I’m trying to keep on topic of child support.
I don’t know enough about the custody systems in the US – except to know that it’s not necessarily consistent across states – to make any claims about whether it’s fair or not. But whether custody was awarded fairly is a totally different issue than whether child support is fair. It doesn’t matter what the woman’s behaviour was – the children did not commit it. And it doesn’t matter who actually gets the money, child support is money that’s there for the children.
The math is simple – if you’re a parent, you need to take care of your children, by either having custody or child support. It may well be that the system for deciding which parent gets which option is flawed. But the third option of “neither of the above” is never justified, regardless of the circumstances of the divorce. You and James seem to be saying that if the father didn’t get the type of support for the children that he wants (and perhaps that he deserves) then he doesn’t need to give any support at all. I think that is reprehensible thinking.
MaMu1977 I would be PO’d if someone got custody after leaving the kids with a sex offender or substance abuse or neglect. YET, I actually don’t know any one in that situation. Do you? The title of this topic is “TYPICAL” child support….
In my experience people making those choices generally disappear and don’t see their kids. Don’t pay their support. And argue C/S isn’t fair…. sadly, I think my experience (NCP making bad choices then disappearing and bitter they owe ANY c/s, claim court favors the mom) is much more typical than the scenario you laid out.
MaMu1977, interesting how quickly you went from ‘this is what many people think the situation is’ to ‘this is what the situation actually is’. (Parental fitness is a very different animal from no-fault divorce, as you know.) Where is this mythical land where women win everything? I know rather a lot of divorced women who would like to move there, as they are unfortunately stuck in the real world.
Well said, Eytan, Mythago and Jenn. The topic IS child support, not infidelity and all of these imaginary scenarios are irrelevant red herrings thought up by someone who would like to create a scenario where it is justified to abandon his children financially. Sad.
MaMu1977, if you don’t mind my asking, where are you?
—Myca
If you look back at my string, you would see what we basically went thru in order to pay my support and balance my family affairs. The past 13 years, my family has never known what it’s like to take a real vacation. I have always loved and treated all my children equally. Now that our support is manageable, it’s like hitting the lottery. My wife and I are now advocates for unfair CS and misrepresentation for dads, and are lobbying to congress to petition for child support reform. Here are some exerts from emails we received, names were omitted for obvious reasons.
My husband’s ex-wife recently had the child support increased by 465% since she learned my husband has advanced himself in his career. Meanwhile, she is mostly a stay-at-home mom, working maybe 15 hrs per week in a nail salon for fun, because her current husband can support her so she does not need to work. Thus the lovely child support formula comes into play forcing my husband to pay the 70% of “child expenses”. The child is 15, so there are no child care expenses, just basics (or so it should be). This was a HUGE hit on our family as fixed expenses such as mortgages, car payments/insurance, etc. are not taken into account. Not to mention the difference in cost of living between WA State and Montana…this should also be taken into account. Now we are barely getting by.
Then to top it all off, the order took 6 months to get the order finalized and in the system. Meanwhile, we would not make the payments because there was nowhere to apply them to and they would be refunded. Now, we are expected to pay 6 months all at once and they have put a lien on our house and reported him to the credit agencies. This is absurd all around.
Something needs to change in the system.
My husband (college degreed professional who was working two jobs) literally was bankrupted and couldn’t afford to even put a roof over his own head after his divorce. He never got behind on the “child” support, though he most likely would have without the help from my in-laws and later myself. Mothers who receive the support do not have to give an account of how the funds are spent. We have constantly seen my stepchildren without basics like clothes that fit and aren’t worn out and at times, they had no food in their house and they called us to pick them up because they were hungry. I am a mother myself and work full time to do my part for my child that I have 365 days a year. Why aren’t divorced mothers, who often have at least 90 days a year without ANY children expected to work and do their part? Why isn’t there a deduction from day 1 for days that children are in dad’s home? Why should housing be included when calculating payments since both parents need a home during their parenting time? It’s unfair to expect one parent to provide two homes and wouldn’t the mother need a roof over her head whether or not she has children?. Why aren’t mothers expected to send support to the dad during his parenting time? Why isn’t it considered when dad covers many other major expenses such as healthcare on top of “child” support? Why is it when a father covers tens of thousands of dollars worth of expenses for the child, he is never allowed to claim that child as a dependent on tax returns? Why are subsequent children not given equal consideration and fathers are expected to play favorites with their children based on birth order and who their mother is. The best solution is 50/50 custody and completely eliminate child support with each parent covering expenses while the child is with him/her. If that’s not possible, costs should be split 50/50 regardless of income and since the receiving parent is getting a break as it is since “Child” support is tax free income, the paying parent should get to claim the child on taxes.
The man I was referring to from New Hampshire is Brian Armstrong, see link below.
http://www.ncpforce.com/avenger.php#barmstrong
FYI-LINK:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/unable-pay-child-support-poor-parents-land-behind-bars/
Ok… eyebrows raised over a couple of statements (bolded):
“My husband’s ex-wife recently had the child support increased by 465% since she learned my husband has advanced himself in his career.” does this person realize how bad that makes the husband look? They wouldn’t raise 465% unless there this person was SEVERELY under paying. I don’t think that make CS look bad. It makes them look like they were purposely trying to hide his income. 4+ times? that’s crazy.
“Why are subsequent children not given equal consideration and fathers are expected to play favorites with their children based on birth order and who their mother is. ” Don’t married couples at some point have to decide “NO MORE KIDS, WE CAN’T AFFORD IT”? How is this different? Is this person advocating it’s ok to continue to have kids you can’t afford?
“The best solution is 50/50 custody and completely eliminate child support with each parent covering expenses while the child is with him/her. ” You can not enforce custody. My ex hasn’t seen the kids in 2 years. He also argued for no child support and half custody.
CUSTODY generally goes to the person who was providing most of the care for the kids. People may say this is biased for the woman, but it’s not, it’s biased to whoever is providing the hands on care. I find it odd that someone would argue for custody but not live in the school zone, know their kids friends names or their teachers name.
I don’t know a single INVOLVED father who did not get 50/50 or better. In this day in age there are men who get full custody. they are the the stay at home days, or dad who choose to work part time.
Irrelevant. The child support money is for the child, not the mother.
What? A 15-year-old will require more money for food and clothing than a little kid, plus all sorts of expenses for school things and extracurricular things.
Then call child services. That is neglect, and shouldn’t be tolerated.
Interesting article, one guy was jailed for owing $3K… that’s really not much. Did he not respond to his summons? Did he not fill out the papers? Did he avoid the calls? Jail seems a bit extreme for that amount, but I’d be curious to know the full story. My ex has had chance after chance to make things right…
At this point my ex owes over $20k. He recently moved to a new state.. I guess sometime in June shortly after getting a summons, so no jail time for him…
Actually, that entire long paragraph at the end of max’s post sounds like someone who really needs to go back to the lawyers and the judges and get something new worked out, because there are quite a few ways in which the situation is not working.
How stringent the penalties for nonpayment are really vary state to state. In California, from what I understand, they’re fairly toothless.
—Myca
@Myca
I’m a native of New York State. I’m also a military veteran. I’ve been the guy who gave chest compressions to a “deadbeat” father post-despair/”If I kill myself, then my family will be able to collect survivors’ benefits” more than once. When I said that I’d never have children (unless I was earning major amounts of money), I wasn’t joking or exaggerating. In fact, that above scenario was my goodbye kiss from the Air Force.
“Meanwhile, we would not make the payments because there was nowhere to apply them to and they would be refunded. Now, we are expected to pay 6 months all at once and they have put a lien on our house and reported him to the credit agencies.”
Again, this doesn’t make the system look bad, it makes the deadbeat and deadbeat supporter (wife) look bad. You haven’t contributed to your child financially for six months, but the child still needed to eat and live for those months. Even if I give you that you didn’t want to give the money to the mother because it wouldn’t be credited to you (which is selfish), you still could have put some money aside each month for your child. It’s not rocket science.
Actually, none of it is hard. A percentage of your income must legally go toward financially assisting your child. The amount is set by the court. If it interferes with your other bills, then you have to adjust your lifestyle. Again, not rocket science. People do it all the time.
I dated a man with a kid before I had my son. He had to pay $1500 per month. He made about $60,000 – $100,000 per year (depending on his commission). Mind you, this $1500 was not court ordered. It was a mutual agreement between him and his ex-wife. The decimeter would have made him pay about $700 per month, based on tax returns. I asked him why he would pay more than the court ordered. He said that “he wanted to do right by his son”. So, there were times when he couldn’t get some material things that he or I wanted because he needed to financially support his son. That is a real parent. Even though we are no longer together, I respect him as a man. He knew/knows that if his ex-wife is taken care of, then his son will be taken care of and I must add that he can’t stand that woman, but he loves his son. He loves his son more than he hates his ex. Unfortunately, most deadbeats can’t say that. They hate their exes more than they love their kids and this is really the heart of what this is about.
Personally, I can’t imagine complaining about providing for my son. He deserves the best. It really bothers me that so many non-custodial parents resent their parental responsibility and this indignant justification of it is frankly pathetic.
Chrissy, I largely agree with your points, but please avoid directly insulting other comment-writers here (i.e., “deadbeat,” “pathetic.”). Thanks!
Chrissy- The people who wrote these are not here to defend themselves and Ampersand is correct to say that it is not fair to insult them. Your attitude toward these people just shows how archaic the system is, because you obviously have issues yourself. I’ve been in the situation where my support was increased, retroactive back several months and instantly placed on my credit report. And my wife and I don’t consider ourselves “DEADBEATS”. BTW, she wasn’t saying that her husband did not pay his CS for six months, just the newly acquired arrears. You should really read it first, before you pick apart an article to suite your needs.
That’s exactly what the courts love to hear, I myself believe a real parent is one that does not pay off their child, but fights for their right to raise the child.
I’ve asked this question several times, why didn’t this outstanding parent/father request to become the CP and waive any support from his ex-wife? Would you grant your ex, CP privileges?
Yeah, that was my first thought on reading that story.
max, in essence you’re saying ‘here are some stories from anonymous people that prove my point, but you’re not allowed to question them’. How is that reasonable, much less persuasive? Particularly as other posters (like Jenn) who are right here have experiences very different from yours, which you choose to ignore?
If you’re interested in persuading people that you are right and the system should be fair, you’re not going to do that by coming up with half-baked theories (bill of attainder? really) or pretending that your anecdata is Truth and everybody else’s anecdata is nonsense.
A prisoner being beaten to death is an outrage no matter why they were in prison, and I’d like to think everyone is concerned about the abuse of contempt penalties. But your link about the gentleman in New Hampshire doesn’t go to a news story; it goes to blogs whose links to evidence (such as the autopsy report) are broken. Do you have any other information?
@MaMu1977: If the gentleman whose life you saved had been in despair because the children’s mother was a deadbeat and his family was destitute without her share of the support, would that have changed your thinking at all? Color me suspicious.
Probably the same reasons that plenty of people decide to work full time while their partner is a stay-at-home parent or works part-time.
If I thought my kids would be better off with that arrangement, absolutely.
Well i think I’m in a stricter state (despite my ongoing saga!). I still don’ t think someone would be jailed for $3k unless they didn’t do something they were supposed to – beyond paying.
The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act (DPPA) was established in 1998 to supplement the Child Support Recovery Act (CSRA) of 1992 doesn’t kick in until $5k
http://singleparents.about.com/od/glossary/g/deadbeat-parents-punishment-act.htm
Really Mythago, you wear your hypocrisy so well.
Unlike your literacy criticism, I was defending the attack on the authors character…
Remember, when you make a living throwing stones you expect that one day someone is going to lob one back….
max, is that a threat, or just more bizarre randomness because you don’t have anything to say?
If you think I am a hypocrite or being unfair to your argument, by all means, point out why, if you can.
Comments like this add nothing to the discussion, and are purely personal attacks. And the last line does sound…. very ambiguous as to what you mean, and not in a good way.
I’m putting your comments on auto-moderation for a while. That means your comments will not appear in public until a moderator has read and approved them. Obviously, if they’re more comments like the one I quoted above, they’ll be deleted rather than approved.
@Max: I can’t answer why the majority of men don’t get/seek custody. My ex had partial custody. His ex wife moved four hours away to a very nice area to raise her son and be in a wonderful school district, so his son comes to visit him every weekend. He also traveled (and still does) to his son’s school frequently for parent /teacher conferences, games, recitals, etc and when we were together he spoke to his son on the phone or on skype every day. I’m not the parenting police, but I think that he does and is doing the best he can to raise his child. I don’t see it as him paying his kid off. He is genuinely just a good guy, who understands that children have expenses. Again, not a hard concept.
I don’t get your logic at all when you ask about fighting for to be the CP. To be clear, I’m not being “accusatory”, I’m using the term “you” universally. If you can “barely” make it when you are paying your court ordered child support, how is it that you think you can afford to care for a child without the other parent’s support? Child support for regular people (excluding people with insanely high incomes) almost never covers the actual expenses for a child. So, “raising” you child WILL cost you more money and if you don’t mind spending more money if your kid lives with you then the issue isn’t the money at all, which brings us back to the real issue – you have a problem with your ex. Personally, I think that it is irresponsible for anyone who is not independently wealthy to NOT seek child support for their children. I think it’s almost as selfish as not paying child support. If you don’t need the money for day to day activities, then it should be put into an account for extras or emergencies.
I would not let my “child’s father” be a CP without a fight, but in the event that something like that happened, I know without a doubt that I would pay my child support. He may get on my nerves, but I know he’s not a drug addict and since I know how it is to care for a child on your own without financial help, I would be grateful for his effort. And I’m not just being obtuse or writing this for the sake of argument. If ANYONE, besides me, was the primary caregiver for my child, I would gladly give money to help out. I would just pray constantly that my child felt loved and understood why I didn’t live with him.
A word about deadbeats: Is the word deadbeat a slur? I just thought it was the term used for a person who did not pay their bills. If indeed a person does not contribute to their child’s life for a period of time, doesn’t that make them a deadbeat?
One more thing: Max’s comments may be completely wrong in my opinion, but I don’t think anyone is really insulted by his personal attacks. I don’t know him, so it doesn’t bother me. Having said that, if he plans to respond, I would like to read it. I can look past all the name-calling and read into the point.
Chrissy, thanks for your comments.
“Deadbeat” is an insulting term, and that it might be accurate doesn’t make it less insulting. (If someone says to me, “you’re a stupid ugly whore,” it’s not a defense to say “but Ampersand really has a low IQ, is facially unattractive and has sex for money.”) If you’re talking about another comment-writer here, please use another term.
And although I’m glad you weren’t insulted by Max’s comments, I and the other moderators have agreed that we’d like to keep conversations here civil, and I don’t think it’s wrong for me to expect Max and other folks to respect that. If Max replies, and keeps it civil, then I’ll let her (his?) response through.
Chrissy, I’m not insulted. I’m still going to point out that it’s a distraction tactic, and not a terribly effective one.
@mythago
I didn’t save his life. Later that day, I found a piece of dura mater under my fingernail.
As to your second question: the “Tender Years” guideline renders it moot. If a woman (during divorce proceedings) was somehow found to be utterly unfit to be a mother, her ex-husband/boyfriend/SO wouldn’t be expecting to get any money from her anyway. My experiences with child custody have been drawn from two backgrounds: military and lower-class urban. I’ve seen women with full scale drug addictions given full custody. I’ve seen women with criminal records given full custody. I’ve seen women violate all custody agreements, then request and receive higher child support payments (eg. move from rural North Carolina to Miami, then request an increase in child support to cover the child’s housing costs.) My introduction to the world of child custody disputes involved a man who couldn’t receive custody of his sons until the younger one showed up on his doorstep with a torn anus (his admission that his mother would let her new boyfriend/dealer have sex with him to finance her crystal meth habit was heartbreaking.) I can’t even fathom the idea of a functional woman being overlooked at the “obvious” choice for primary parent status. I’d sooner believe that someone managed to train a cat to walk on it’s hind legs and shake paws than believe that a court would choose a man over all but the most dysfunctional of women.
That being said: if the NCP has the means to pay, yet chooses not to pay, the NCP is an asshole and deserves the scorn. If the CP was at wit’s end, I’d give that person as much support as necessary.
I’d be interested in attorney opinions on imputed income. Mythago? Others?
I’m an attorney, although I don’t specialize in family law. A guy living in his car – unemployed – will be given an amount of child support and then told by the judge to get off his lazy ass and earn it or he is going to jail. I don’t have much of a problem with that, although it may be a teensy-weensy violation of the 13th amendment.
What I DO have a problem with is the reverse. A man with a couple of kids is not going to get any traction whatsoever against a woman who has moved in with a boyfriend, for example, who pays for everything. She is unemployed. Happens a lot.
Even if you directly confront a judge (I have), they come up with all sorts of excuses. Her boyfriend is not responsible, and he would be paying in reality. Not fair. I have NEVER seen a woman ordered to get a friggin’ job.
I have told male clients that they are going to get a maximum of 50 bucks a month – 600 a year – and he will pay out several thousand in attorney fees to try to enforce it, and she just won’t pay anyway and no one cares. So he does what is economically sensible and just lets it go.
What’s that all about?
I am not an attorney so you can throw my opinion out the window.
BUT – I don’t think that’s fair.
But I also know that we are constantly reminding being a house wife is a real job to stay home and to respect it. Is that why? Societies roles and expectations? Men are expected to support their family, women are expected to emotionally support their family?
@MaMu1977: The “tender years” doctrine is not law where I live. I doubt it’s law very many places these days. I thought MRAs were angry about the “best interests of the child” now?
I know fathers in horrible, unfair situations. I know mothers in horrible, unfair situations too – but I’m not sure there’s any point in talking about them, given that you’ve decided in advance that you’d never believe any of it? I imagine that if I told you my first introduction to the world of family law you’d stick your fingers in your ears and say something about acrobatic cats.
Penelope, I don’t specialize in family law either, but what imputed income is supposed to do (as you probably know) is to get around the problem of “I’m not a lawyer anymore, I’ve quit my job and pursued my dream of becoming an artist for exactly as long as it takes for this court to decide my child support should be calibrated to Poor Artist Income and not Salaried Income.” Or working off the books for cash. (La Lubu, who’s in the skilled trades, hasn’t posted much lately, but she’s talked in the past about the regular practice of co-workers getting paid under the table by sympathetic bosses.) Or “No, I don’t have a job, no, I kinda haven’t bothered to look.”
My guesstimate on ‘what’s that all about’? The state doesn’t give a shit about child support as long as nobody goes on welfare; judges care if somebody violates a direct order they gave; that’s about it. Jenn is hardly the only CP I’ve talked to (male or female) who’s gone through the dance of not getting paid, going to get it enforced, ex moves or changes jobs and so they start all over again.
I didn’t intend to threaten or offend anybody, the last phrase was an exert from a Mark Twain novel. Maybe I should add a disclaimer?
Anyhow:
The word deadbeat dad is in the same category as bitch, whore, n****r etc. It is never used in a phrase like deadbeat MOM? In fact the word deadbeat by itself is pretty much harmless, but adding dad puts a whole new meaning to it. There are pamphlets given out at family support centers that use the word deadbeat dad, which I consider to be defamation of character. This is the type of misguided propaganda that has to be addressed before the system can move forward.
Chrissy- I made it a point to stay in the same town and school district as my daughter. I petitioned the courts to be the primary care and waive any support from my ex-wife. The courts said no, that it would be in the best interest of the child to be with her mother. Even though my wife and I have teaching careers and could provide for a much better family environment. I won’t go into details and bash my ex-wife, but my daughter did spend more than 75% of her time with me, while I was still expected to pay child support. I eventually considered it an even trade off. She has since graduated ‘egregia cum laude’ from Harvard with an MS in teaching, at least she has my looks:-).
Jenn-
Yes back in the dark ages maybe! Have you seen the U.S. senses lately?
58.6%
Percentage of females 16 and older who participated in the labor force, representing about 71.9 million women, in 2010.
40.6%
Percent of employed females 16 and older who worked in management, professional and related occupations, compared with 34.2 percent of employed males.
http://www.annarbor.com/news/census-bureau-economic-crisis-means-more-working-moms-stay-at-home-dads/
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-563.pdf
Well, thank you for the very straightforward and honest answer, Mythago. You missed the part about failing to put any pressure on sit-at-home, irresponsible, non-custodial women vis-a-vis sit-at-home, irresponsible, non-custodial men (kind of my only point – how imputed income is served up), but you nailed the rest of it. Whatever the rest was.