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.
And again, Nick: showing that there are some ‘insanely high’ support payments is not the same as showing that ‘child support payments are insanely high’–the difference between some and all (or even most) is obvious. And if you can’t find people who claim that the child-support system isn’t a feminazi invention designed to screw men, you’re not looking.
I have cited their study which shows that most of the 1 billion owed in arrears is by parents who make less than $10,000/year.
I’m not sure how that shows ‘child support payments are insanely high’. It suggests rather strongly that, duh, people who are poor have trouble meeting child-support payments.
How do you think the custodial parents manage in those cases?
Yes it is. The ordered amounts are not unreasonable when they stick to the tables. Unfortunately, there is no protection for anyone if they do decide to deviate from them.
Do you agree with the statement.
Should this ever be the case? If it is ever the case, what is the inevitable outcome? Should people who believe this ever be allowed to write civil laws?
Well 15% of the people who are in arrears currently are female despite being only 5% of the non-custodial population. {Don’t miscontstrue this statement to be anti-female. The nonpayments are primarily caused by poverty. I would be willing to bet that this apparent gender difference disappears when it is binned by income levels.)
That percentage will continue to increase as the custody awards get equalized out between the genders in the next ten to fifteen years. So this is a problem that crosses the gender barrier.
As for feminazi’s, they are not the primary culprit. The usual culprit are the politicians – both R and D – who are catering to a massive voting block.
{Now who would you like to blame the UCAPA debacle on? One of the primary authors was a female law professor. Hmmm, but then ‘everyone’ else is signing on. The Uniform Law Commission, the Bar association, at least five states. Can we send all the lawyers back to school to study the constitution again?}
Amp clearly understands the issue. He has not yet come to terms with how many orders are too high.
This appears a reasonable assumption based on the federal report on the median amounts of child support orders. However, the system is seriously broke and in deep trouble and headed for a meltdown.
Remember, paying child support is not a personal choice anymore. By law, wages are garnished automatically on the establishment of an order. So the only way arrears can be generated is for the cases when the state is negligent or the payor does not have a steady job.
Look at each states child support arrearages – they are growing in leaps and bounds every year despite the mandatory laws.
There are 60,000 people on the Louisiana deadbeat list alone. To jail them all as the law requires would take a large city.
One basic problem is that the orders are for fixed amounts and not percentages. The federal taxes are taken by percentages and change automatically when a persons income rises and falls. The child support orders are fixed based on the families income level at a given point in time. Once it is fixed, they are reluctant to change the orders – either up or down.
A percentage-based system would seem to make sense. The reason courts are so reluctant to lower orders is to prevent the case of the wealthy hard-working NCP who says “bag it” and semi-retires after a divorce to bring their income to zero, then (after they get the new lower order) go back to work and keep everything. Percentages would greatly reduce the incentive to do that, and wouldn’t punish NCPs for economic dislocations.
Nick, since I’m pretty sure you were just echoing Mythago’s tongue-in-cheek use of “feminazis,” I’m gonna let it pass. But in general, it’s a bad idea for right-wingers and MRAs on this site to use the word “feminazi”; unlike Mythago, when MRAs use the term I have to stop and think “is he using the word seriously?,” and I’d rather not have to spend my time thinking about that sort of boring moderation chore.
(Also, any comment using the word “feminazi” is automatically put into moderation and needs to be approved before anyone will be able to read it. I’ve found it’s an effective way of weeding out trolls.)
Unfortunately, there is no protection for anyone if they do decide to deviate from them.
In either direction, true?
Well 15% of the people who are in arrears currently are female despite being only 5% of the non-custodial population.
I’m not sure where you think I suggested this is a male or female problem; could you please point out where I did? (If my husband were to run off with the pool boy tomorrow, it wouldn’t be him who ended up the non-custodial, support-paying parent, let’s put it that way.)
I’m not arguing the system is A-OK the way it is, or that 100% income going to child support is good–just as I’m sure you would not argue that a 1% award is a good thing.
VERY TRUE. That goes for both Child Support and Custody.
A judges decision goes into effect immediately. Appeals cases are notorious for taking 2 years to get a decision. One of the many nightmare examples is Guillot v. Munn. Six plus years, with three trips to the Louisiana Supreme court.
Simply giving the divorcing couple a little more say on who decides their case (a little veto power) would go a long way to putting the bad actors out of business.
You didn’t. I didn’t intend to imply that you did, and I apologize for that.
That is a difficult point to present, and I was trying to put in the disclaimer ahead of time so that the point was not misconstrued. I had a radio station host get all huffy on me when I tried to use the fact to make the point that the orders are too high on the very poor.
P.S. Many of the cases with insanely low child support orders are the same cases where the child support is also insanely high! Some sets of parents don’t make any money worth speaking about. Perhaps the minimum wage pay rise will help.
Agreed. Both would be insane. A 100% order if complied with results in the starvation of the payor within a month and then all child support payments cease. A 1% order if complied with results in the starvation of the child.
The 100% comment comes from a meeting of one of the states child support committees. They were trying to work out how to better handle multi-family cases. The State faction was pushing for a formula because orders could add up to 100% of a persons income. The person who wrote the minutes stated that “several of the committee members felt that it was okay to have child support orders take 100% of a persons income.”
One of the reforms I would like to see is a monthly maximum amount that is ‘legal’. Basically any amount ordered over the maximum garnishment amount (50% of pay under Louisiana law / 50-65% under Federal law) should be a nulity.
Just as spousal support is currently limited to 1/3 of a persons income by Louisiana law.
I sure wish they wouldn’t make it so hard to get the facts. They give us the child support amounts or the arrears amount, but we rarely get a case where we have enough numbers to make an informed decision on how widespread the problem is.
Oops, I’ll remember that and not do that again.
Exactly. Just take away the ‘intent’ part and the courts reluctance still holds.
The stress and anxiety of the divorce tends to put both parents in a downward spiral. Loss of employment is a natural consequence of our current adversarial system.
The court system is extremely expensive to play in. Attorney’s cost $150-200/hour in this region and much more in the big cities. A day in court costs both parties a day of work and probably at least $1,200 each.
It is easy for a custody case to consume an average parents income – $30,000 in only a few months.
If you are rich, they just eat the money even faster. For that outrageous celebrity case on Aruba, the lawyer wanted something like $600,000 for the little bit of work she did.
Court, its glacially slow, exorbitantly expensive and emotionally devastating. It is a system I would not wish on my worst enemy.
Simply giving the divorcing couple a little more say on who decides their case (a little veto power) would go a long way to putting the bad actors out of business.
Do your courts not have a system where either party can (once) challenge the judge to whom they’re assigned as being unfairly biased or prejudiced, so that their motion/trial/etc. is sent to a different judge? If not, they should. (The ‘once’ is to prevent judge-shopping.)
Some sets of parents don’t make any money worth speaking about.
Which is the flip side of the burden on the poor. If one person is paying no child support, the other person–equally poor, in all likelihood–is GETTING no child support.
In other words, the issue is burden-shifting; if one person doesn’t pay the other has to make up the difference. So it’s the dilemma of “why should parent A have to take on parent B’s hardship?” vs. “why should we be pushing parent B into a hole s/he will never get out of?”
Just FYI, this is sort of a paper privilege. It rarely works (hard to prove), and if it fails then you’re back before a judge who is now firmly ripshit at you and/or your client. Finally, you may not get a better judge at all.
Sure, it exists, and it works occasionally, but it is not so hot a mechanism to prevent judge bias.
No, the courts (in Louisiana) certainly don’t have such a system. The right to recuse a judge is very limited. Some parishes have only one judge. Ours has only three.
Yep.
The third horn of this dilemma is that our system for doing this takes tonnes of money to run. Sometimes the ratio of money gotten to taxpayer money fed in is only 2 to 1.
Some people are getting into some very deep holes. There are women out there with 8 children all by different fathers. There are men out there with 9 children by five different women. It is hard to have much sympathy for either of these parenting extremes.
But staying away from the extremes, take an ordinary family making $2,000/month (average for Louisiana) with the mom raising three kids at home. The kids are too young for the mom to work without paying for daycare. The take home pay is about $1,639/month.
Lets say poverty level for one is $667/month and for each additional person is $250. So together they were all just at the federal poverty level for 5 at $1667.
The child support order is $655/month – which is what the family spent on the children when they were married. So the noncustodial parent has $984/month to the custodial parents $655/month to live on. So the custodial family is living in desperate poverty. (The fed report cited by amp would list this as $218/child)
The custodial parent has almost enough to keep the children out of poverty, but nothing to keep the custodial parent. The judge can order an alimony payment of up to a 1/3 of net income. That would be $546/month. Now it is $438/month for the non-custodial parent and $1,201/month for the custodial parent. So now the NCP is in desperate poverty and the custodial parent and kids are close to the poverty level. Now the NCP is likely to quit the job or become a fugitive.
The alimony level that would equalize the poverty levels would be $459/month. That would leave the NCP with $524/month and the CP with $1,114/month. So both families are living at 78% of poverty when together they were at 100% of poverty. The problem with this deal and the one before is that it exceeds the maximum take.
Federal law limits the maximum garnishment to 50% of net income. So the most that can be taken is $820/month. Say $655/month as child support and the balance of $164/month as alimony. That gives both families $819.5/month to live on. Now the NCP is at 1.23% of poverty and the CP is at 57% of poverty.
Failure to transfer enough wealth over and the children live in wretched poverty. Transfer too much over and the payor starves.
With private attorneys, each court appearance to set or change these orders can easily cost $1,200/appearance.
The sympathy one feels for the plight of either A and B varies depending on which one was the bad actor. Usually they both failed to one extent or another. Lets assume that they are both well behaved
Both A and B wanted the children and intended to raise them. When married they made a natural division of labor. One went out and earned the money and the other stayed home to raise the family. With the split, A wants the deal to continue and B wants the deal to be equalized – they both must work and both must share in the child raising.
Odd that B now sees one mode of family as “natural” for marriage, but unequal after a divorce. Isn’t it odd to suddenly expect the parent who did not have a paid job to jump into the workforce, and the parent who didn’t do the majority of hands-on childrearing to suddenly juggle job and parenting?
I’m not so worried about sympathy for a “bad spouse” as I am for the kids, who the support is intended to, uh, support.
Sailorman, not sure what you’re talking about. In civil cases in California, we have what is called a 170.6 challenge. All the lawyer (or pro se party) has to do is affirm under oath that the judge is biased against the party, side or their lawyer, and therefore they do not believe they can get a fair trial. That’s it. No offer of proof is necessary.
Isn’t it odd to suddenly expect the parent who did not have a paid job to jump into the workforce, and the parent who didn’t do the majority of hands-on childrearing to suddenly juggle job and parenting?
No, it isn’t odd at all. The previous arrangement was (presumably) predicated on an agreement to reciprocally delegate responsibilities to the other person in the partnership.
That partnership is broken, and so the previous arrangement loses its force. The formerly paid-working parent no longer gets to delegate childrearing responsibilities, and the formerly pure-childrearing parent no longer gets to delegate earning responsibilities. Both of them now have an obligation to make their own way in the world, and to raise their children properly, and neither is now entitled to levy against the labor of the other, whether that labor is domestic or economic.
For the good of the children, it may be desirable for the parents to re-establish that mutual permission to levy. But it isn’t automatic; my obligation to my son does not create an obligation to make my (hypothetical) ex-wife’s life easier, nor does her obligation to him oblige her to make my life easier. It might be a good idea – but neither of us is entitled to that assumption any longer.
I have little sympathy for people who want to break covenants but still enjoy their fruits, even if the desire for that fruit is alleged to arise from concern for the children.
For the good of the children, it may be desirable for the parents to re-establish that mutual permission to levy.
If the issue is the good of the children, shouldn’t that levy continue? If having one parent providing full-time caretaking and one parent concentrating on income is the best possible arrangement, why does that cease to benefit the children just because their parents are divorced?
It doesn’t cease to benefit them. It simply ceases to be the obligation of the (adult) parties to do it.
You seem to want to have divorce without actually divorcing. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting your position, but it seems to me that if one wishes to make the argument that people divorcing must continue to act in the best interest of the child(ren), then the next logical step is to inquire whether people should be allowed to divorce at all.
It doesn’t cease to benefit them. It simply ceases to be the obligation of the (adult) parties to do it.
That’s circular. The obligations of the adult parties to their children continue after marriage. Why are they “obligated” to live June and Ward economic roles before marriage, but free thereafter? If you agree that a full-time, at-home caretaker and a full-time wage-earner are the best possible arrangement for the child, then why does that suddenly become substandard after divorce?
As for not divorcing, you are aware (I hope) that the parents’ economic behavior is not the only aspect of marriage.
Why are they “obligated” to live June and Ward economic roles before marriage, but free thereafter?
They weren’t obligated before. They mutually agreed to do it that way before. Now their mutual agreement is broken.
If you agree that a full-time, at-home caretaker and a full-time wage-earner are the best possible arrangement for the child, then why does that suddenly become substandard after divorce?
It doesn’t. You are mistaking a belief that something should not be mandatory for a belief that something is not good.
Also the costs of supporting said arrangement increase as the earner must now (barring divorce + living in the same house) supply two separate family units with food, shelter etc… thus what may have been an acceptable split before the divorce now becomes unsuitable (unless the custodial parent is willing to come round and do what they did for the ncp before the split).
It makes sense that after a divorce both parents are on the hook for 50% of the costs of the children less/additional for less time caring for them (so a 50/50 split gives no wealth transfer as both parents must retain housing, clothing and feeding of the children).
They mutually agreed to do it that way before. Now their mutual agreement is broken.
And after that agreement is broken, we look to the well-being of the children. If “this was best for the kids” was true of the pre-marital arrangement, shouldn’t we attempt to preserve that as much as possible after divorce?
You are mistaking a belief that something should not be mandatory for a belief that something is not good.
Huh?
If “this was best for the kids” was true of the pre-marital arrangement, shouldn’t we attempt to preserve that as much as possible after divorce?
Sure. And what’s possible comes up squarely against people’s right to self-determination.
Are you seriously arguing that after a divorce, people should be required to maintain the social role that they held before the divorce? Mom wants to get a job – too bad, she’s got cookies to bake?
Huh?
You said: “If you agree that [a particular scenario is] the best possible arrangement for the child, then why does that suddenly become substandard after divorce?”
It doesn’t become substandard. But the fact that something is good does not mean that we can require it. It’s good to brush your teeth five times a day; no entity on Earth is empowered to require an adult human to do that. Arguing for freedom to choose our own dental hygiene regimen is not arguing that dental hygiene is unimportant.
If it were that easy, how does a trial ever get done against a bad actor? It is certainly not that way in Louisiana. For the cases I have heard of in California, I have never heard anyone claim it was that easy.
This arrangement is “natural” in that it maximizes the income for the family. A is providing benefits for B & c,d &e. B is providing benefits for A & c,d&e.
after a split.
Expenses increase, so be can only provide for 80% of the new needs. If everything is split equal {and it rarely is} both A, B, and c,d,*&e experience a 20% drop in their standard of living.
Unless you are suggesting that A come over to B’s house and clean it, B must naturally assume housekeeping duties that were previously divided between the two.
While A did most of the parenting in the original contract, B was having substantial contact time with c,d & e every day. Contact that c,d&e need but can’t get in a 4 day/month standard schedule.
“Expenses increase, so be can only provide for 80% of the new needs. If everything is split equal {and it rarely is} both A, B, and c,d,*&e experience a 20% drop in their standard of living.
Unless you are suggesting that A come over to B’s house and clean it, B must naturally assume housekeeping duties that were previously divided between the two.
While A did most of the parenting in the original contract, B was having substantial contact time with c,d & e every day. Contact that c,d&e need but can’t get in a 4 day/month standard schedule.”
Nick, though it was kinda left unsaid, I think the point here is obvious. Do you agree that it’s better for the kids if their mommy stays mostly at home? Yes or no? If yes, wouldn’t it better for them, after the divorce, if their mommy (assuming she’s the CP) didn’t have to be out working all the blinking hours of the day just to pay the bills? Given the new realities, it’s unrealistic to expect the mother to be able to take care of her children full time as before. But if we’re accepting that having mommy at home is needed to keep the kids from doing drugs and maiming squirrels, it makes sense for her to receive enough in support payments so that she can spend as much time with them as possible.
Now, I’m not clamouring for this arrangement myself. It would create too many perverse incentives for women to divorce, and kids aren’t that wilting and weak – unless we expect for them to be, in any case. But if you accept having a parent at home is essential for children, you should be prepared to go all the way with it, and not just stop when something other than women’s ambitions are asked to be sacrificed for it.
Pingback: Child-Support » Blog Archive » SOCIAL SECURITY AND CHILD SUPPORT
Pingback: Child-Support » Blog Archive » Brian and his son
Hi all im a father that has to pay support, but if we want to change things make things equal. I keep hearing that most want equality but yet when it comes down to wanting that then they say its (my child). But for the most part i never wanted another child and i told her this and when it came down to it she took on having a child by herself and thats justified but not equal. My feelings are that if women want to bring life then a father should have the right to support or not to support when he has not be completely involved and not treated like a sperm donor with finanical benifits.
post removed by author
If it were that easy, how does a trial ever get done against a bad actor?
Because they only get to do it once. A party can’t say “Not that judge…oh, not that one either…nope…okay, that one.” And there’s always the chance of rejecting a bad judge and getting somebody worse.
While A did most of the parenting in the original contract, B was having substantial contact time with c,d & e every day.
Why do you make that assumption?
I changed your word from to . There are plenty of families where the house parent is the daddy and not the mommy. My sisters house for one. This is why I listed them as A and B, to keep it gender neutral.
If you go back through the math for the average family, there is no realistic way for that to happen unless the family remains together.
For a two parent family, real income is maximized by one parent working and one parent staying at home. When both parents work, total income increases, but so do taxes and day care expenses resulting in no net effective increase in income.
The optimum arrangement for the children of two parents who are divorced is for the parents to have opposing work schedules so that one parent is always off to take care of the children – eliminating the day care expense.
c, d & e, to grow up healthy, have strong needs for lots of parental contact with both A and B. In an intact family, they get this contact with each parent every day. In a divorced family, the courts tend to favor solutions that result in a parentectomy – the excising of one of the two parents from the children’s lives.
By the way, though they are still small in numbers, the group of people that most discriminated against by society are mothers who have lost custody.
“For a two parent family, real income is maximized by one parent working and one parent staying at home. When both parents work, total income increases, but so do taxes and day care expenses resulting in no net effective increase in income.”
What planet do you live on that you can make such a sweeping generalization? I’ve done both (not voluntarily) where both parents are working and where one parent stays home and the other works. If you are talking about low or medium wage jobs, there is absolutely a net increase in income – despite daycare and taxes. It can mean the difference between paying all your bills or not. If that isn’t a net increase I don’t know what more can demonstrate that.
I can’t speak for divorced families. I think it’s obvious that there is a serious economic disadvantage to divorce for all involved usually. but that doesn’t necessarily mean that an “intact” family is automatically better. Sometimes an economic step down is preferable to constant tension and fighting, resentment and lord knows what else. Economic well being is very important to family well being – I absolutely won’t deny that – but it’s not the ONLy important factor. And as long as the step down in economic standing doesn’t produce destitution, I can certainly imagine scenerios where it is preferable to living in an “intact” but highly unsatsfying and unhappy home.
“But for the most part i never wanted another child and i told her this and when it came down to it she took on having a child by herself and thats justified but not equal. My feelings are that if women want to bring life then a father should have the right to support or not to support when he has not be completely involved and not treated like a sperm donor with finanical benifits.”
I’m not entirely sure what you are saying here, but I *think* that you are saying that if you didn’t want the child in the first place then you shouldn’t have to be responsible for helping to support the child when it arrives. Here’s my feeling on that matter. If you didn’t want to be a father, then you should have worn a condom. Pregnancy prevention is not entirely up to the woman. If you do not want to become a father, then I would hope you took the necessary steps to prevent it. If you agreed to have another child even though you didn’t really want to just to try to make her happy, then you have to live with the consequences of that decision. Ultimately, you helped create a child – you are equally responsible for providing for its needs.
There are plenty of families where the house parent is the daddy and not the mommy.
Why, yes. Mine, for example. I don’t, however, pretend that we chose this arrangement because it’s the best economic choice:
When both parents work, total income increases, but so do taxes and day care expenses resulting in no net effective increase in income.
Nonsense. This is the same logic that suggests if you chew celery long enough, you actually lose calories. If your enshrinement of the breadwinner/homemaker model is really grounded in economics, I’d be happy to walk you through why that isn’t so (e.g. “opportunity costs”). If money is just an excuse for the real reason–you think somebody should be at home full-time–then please be clear about that so as I don’t have to waste my time.
Huh?
As Mythago noted, this makes no sense as a general statement.
Sure, it can be true in certain circumstances. But it’s just numbers; there’s always a break-even point and above that it’s profit.
It’s not uncommon for daycare for kids to be hideously expensive, on the line of $10,000 per year EACH. But even with that amount… if you have 2 kids in daycare and you pay 33% in taxes, then you are making a profit as soon as you break $30,000 in earned income.
Obviously not everyone makes $30,000. But of course, those families where people are unable to earn $30,000 have a greater tendency to 1) be in a lower tax bracket, and 2) be eligible–theoretically, at least–for subsidized day care.
And of course, there’s the other well-known solution of splitting shifts with or without a parental overlap. I know many couples who do this; they pay very little in childcare costs.
Also, money isn’t everything. My wife wants to work, so she’s about to start to work after a hiatus of many years’ worth if mothering. She may “lose money” for the family, at least initially. But of course, she’s providing an excellent role model for our kids. She’s also developing experience so she’ll make more in the future. And (last but certainly not least) she’s making herself happy. I’m willing to sacrifice for that, no questions asked.
Okay, I guess I *do* have to go through it.
Arguing that the difference between a one-income family and a two-income family is “second income minus daycare” is wrong in terms of very basic economics. It ignores long-term and opportunity costs. Sailorman’s wife and my husband are not simply giving up the money they would make right now. They’re giving up the money they would make in the future.
Let’s assume Mrs. Example has two children and decides, conservatively, to stay home with them for five years. Mrs. Example is not just giving up five years’ salary. She is giving up five years’ worth of salary increases; five years’ worth of experience in the workplace, which can lead to promotions or switching to a better job; five years’ worth of eligibility for benefits. (Even Wal-Mart and McDonald’s give benefits if you stick around long enough.) Mrs. Example may even be able to turn that money into more money–for example, if her employer offers a matching 401K program, or if she can put that money into the bank.
And the Example family will not be incurring the additional costs it would need to cushion Mrs. Example should the family’s sole breadwinner, Mr. Example, lose his job or run off with the pool boy. (Or, god forbid, to make up for the loss if they don’t have that cushion.) Life insurance and savings come to mind. Also, should Mrs. Example have to return to work before she expected, she will be that many years behind where she would have been if she had continued to work outside the home.
The Examples may well decide that their family setup is best for them–and it may very well be. But economically, it’s not the “optimum arrangement”, and to pretend otherwise is to dress up a value judgment by pretending it’s an economic one.
Also, there is the economic cost of having people in the house all day long. It’s possible that cost is mediated by increased cost of traveling to work or whatever, but my electric and gas bills are much smaller now that there’s no one in the house for 9-10 hours of the day.
Mythago’s economic argument about opportunity cost is dead on though, particularly when you think about stuff like benefits and 401Ks. I know plenty of people who work for the retirement and health benefits alone – the net take home after daycare cost is so negligible that it doesn’t have a lot of benefit for monthly expenses, but the long term benefits of developing a retirement savings and having good health insurance provide an inexplicable amount of economic benefit overall.
Back when I was a SAH parent I had that argument with a lot of fellow SAH parents (i.e. moms) who would smugly announce all the money they were saving by staying home. When I pointed out that wasn’t necessarily so, they would then get angry and say “well I’m not doing it for the money!!!!”
Mythago, Are you arguing that it’s NOT financially better for one person to be a full time parent of that it’s not ALWAYS financially better?
Your point seems obvious when both partners can make a lot of money. But doesn’t necessarily have to be true.
Are you arguing that it’s NOT financially better for one person to be a full time parent of that it’s not ALWAYS financially better?
1) The blanket statement that it’s “optimal” to have one breadwinner and one at-home parent is patently false as a blanket statement. It will be true of some families and utterly untrue of others.
2) The economic calculation “current value of the second income minus daycare plus work expenses equals value of a second income” is bad economics.
That’s all.
Interesting posts. I think the convenience of divorce got us into this “1 billion owed to custodial parents” mess we are in. Although, I agree that there are many documented cases of unreasonable child support, the courts for the most part have been fair. My interest is in the percentage of parents who choose not to pay. As the ability to find someone and their income continues to improve, the important people, the kids, may get some level of assistance to have as normal of a life they can.
Just looking for thoughts,comments and any help with my husbands child support situation! I’ll give you the history…….His daughter turned 18 a couple weeks ago. His original court order back in 1989 was $50 per week. In approx. 1997 they decided to stop going through DOR and he would pay her directly. A year or two later she asked for an increase of $25. He agreed……and about 5 years ago she asked for another $25 increase. Again he agreed. So for all these years he’s paid her what she asked for, and for the last 10 or so years it was between $25 – $50 a week over the original order…Which we have and is still $50 according to the courts. The daughter stayed back a year, so although she is 18 she has one more year of highschool. We decided on her 18th birthday to drop the payments back down to the court ordered amount of $50 per week. (He owes no back support)! The custodial mother is co-owner to two local businesses. One with a friend and the friends mother and the other she runs with her “partner” (male). She is also employed by a local realtor. The daughter works part time and informed me that when she goes back to school she will be working full time as part of the diversified work program. This will allow her to get credits and make a full time wage! When the custodial parent received the $50 check, she called and asked why….My husband told her that with the daughter working and her 3 incomes, he didnt feel she needed the extra money over the court ordered amount. She told him this wasn’t an option and he told her to take him to court. This is a person who cashes a check 3 or 4 weeks after she gets it. Her and her “partner” both drive new trucks, the daughter has a nicer vehicle than we have. Our 13 year old (girl) went with her “sister” one day and came back depressed and said I was in her room mom…She has everything! We struggle to live here…We both work…. but we can’t afford a lawyer….I worry that she will take us to court and the judge will award her with a large amount of child support. Not taking into consideration there is another child involved or the fact that this other household has an abundance of money. Can her “partners” income be used because the child calls him “Dad”? I am desperate for answers and don’t have a clue where to start looking!
In regard to FCH and Rachel S’s comments regarding less support ordered when NCP spends more time with their children…
I’m guessing, in most cases, the support amount set takes into consideration what was, or is in some cases still, standard NCP visitation – every other weekend, 1 week at Christmas, and 2-6 weeks in the summer.
Let’s flip the coin. Instead of the NCP taking “standard” visitation, or even having 50% of the time share, what about those NCPs who do not visit at all? Who don’t send a birthday card/present, or Christmas presents, who do nothing at all over and above the amount of support they are forced to pay?
The latter is the case in my situation. I’m all for NCPs who spend lots of time with their children on a regular basis having their support adjusted to some degree to allow them more money to care for the child when the child is with them. But by the same token, when the NCP contributes nothing to the child, either emotional or physical, obviously the CPs expenses are higher than the “standard” CP, and support from the NCP should therefore be increased somewhat, to allow the CP to level the playing field.
For example: My ex husband and his family bought my son birthday presents and Christmas presents, took him places when he was with them, bought him extra school clothes sometimes, etc.
My 2nd ex has nothing to do with my daughter. My 1st ex and his family invited my daughter to come over for holidays and the like, and I would buy gifts for them to give her – sort of to balance things out. So she did not feel left out.
This sort of thing kept any jealousy from coming into the picture, because neither child felt left out.
And it has cost me a fortune over the years (because I not only have had to buy my share of gifts, but his share, as well).
On the other hand, had ex #2 stepped up to the plate and been a good father (or a father at all), the cost wouldn’t have been so high for me.
OK, no, I didn’t HAVE to do this. But can any parent here say they would stand by and do nothing while one of their children had “everything” and the other child had “nothing”? Or that they’d let one child grow up angry, experiencing constant reminders that their other parent doesn’t shive a git?
That’s just one example of how expenses for CPs can be so much higher as a result of the NCP being absolutely uninvolved, off the top of my head.
Sooo… do we make adjustments increasing support for CPs who have to do the NCP’s job in parenting, and decrease support for CPs when the NCP takes an active, 50/50 role in the child’s life?
I’m all for both.
But then the question remains, would the courts have time to fiddle with calculations to this degree? How do we figure how much time each parent really spends with their children? What happens if this month the NCP is around 50% of the time, and then they go 3 months without being around, then 2 months coming around, etc, do we change it on a month to month or year to year basis?
And, if I’m not mistaken, don’t joint parenting calculations take into consideration both parents’ income, and the amount of time they spend with the child?
How about we do away with no fault divorce? Seems to me there’d be a lot fewer people living in poverty….
“How about we do away with no fault divorce? Seems to me there’d be a lot fewer people living in poverty….”
Right, because FORCING people to stay married when they clearly can’t get along will GUARANTEE prosperity. C’mon! The one thing it WILL guarantee are even more abused women who can’t escape their relationships because they can’t afford the incredible expense of a contested divorce. In my neck of the woods, an uncontested divorce runs around $1,000 counting expenses. A contested divorce? $5,000 MINIMUM, more likely to reach $10,000 especially if custody is at issue. How many people have that kind of money laying around to hand to me or some other lawyer?
Hmm…seems to me that “no-fault” wouldn’t really apply in a case where one partner is being abused by the other partner. To further address your argument, the vast majority of men are not abusers. I know it’s fun to think that everyone with a penis is an abuser/oppressor/potential rapist, but we have to live in the real world. That’s plain fantasy.
‘Hmm…seems to me that “no-fault” wouldn’t really apply in a case where one partner is being abused by the other partner.’
I’m sorry, but you really have no idea what you’re talking about here. “No fault” means simply that a divorce can be obtained without proving that the other party is responsible for the breakup of the marriage. In order to afford a divorce, women who are victims of abuse frequently go the “no fault” route, because their partner would contest it if publicly accused of abuse (since, you know, that is a crime). Without “no fault” divorce, these women simply could not afford to obtain a divorce at all. Having worked as an attorney for the last ten years, I have more than a passing familiarity with this.
“I know it’s fun to think that everyone with a penis is an abuser/oppressor/potential rapist, but we have to live in the real world. That’s plain fantasy.”
I have no idea what the hell this is supposed to mean, but as the owner of a penis for the last nearly forty years, I don’t think anything of the sort, no did I ever claim that I did. Please keep your straw feminist caricatures out of this.
When my aunt’s husband cheated on her multiple times, she went for a no-fault divorce, to spare herself and her son a long, protracted divorce in which she would have had to PROVE adultery.
Doing away with “no-fault” divorce will only benefit divorce lawyers.
by Ampersand:
However, some men’s rights activists (MRAs) use rhetoric which suggests that child support payments are often or typically outrageously high…
———-
Ampersand,
There is no reason for MR-activists not to support their children financially.
I can comment only about the situation within the EU and why MR-activists are complaining about child support payment in that region.
Child-support in Western Europe for 2 children is about 20 to 25 percent of the income, which means for ordinary wage-earners about USD 700 to USD 900,- per month.
Complaints are more related to incorrect handling of child-support-money and unreasonable laws and not about the amount fathers should pay for their children.
To give you some examples, (maybe legal situation is different between USA and EU) – But is it not strange that an ex-husband has to pay child-support to his ex-wife despite he is not the biological father of the children who are living with her after divorce? Why is paternity testing refused by courts and therefore he cannot refer to the biological father for compensation of his payments?
Or another example, why has an ex-husband to pay child-support to the mother, who is serving a prison sentence, while the children are not with her, but living with the father during that time?
A father had to pay for many months child-support to his ex-mother-in-law, despite the child was living with him after the death of his ex-wife. – Her mother was handling the inheritage (inheritage was including the child-support according to the law, as the child was living with the mother)
There were also cases, where the mother was not using the child-support-money for the child, but for drugs and alcohol. – There are cases known, where the child-support – despite regular payments – was not used for the child at all.
Legally seen, neither the father nor authorities have any right to control what the mother is really doing with this money. It should not be like that…
Further, single fathers are not entitled for child-support from the mother – support in most EU-countriess is only from the father/authorities to the biological mother.
Up to now, nobody could explain me, why such laws, some of them created after WWII, are not yet under revision.
I think therefore, MRA in Europe have valid points to complain about the legal procedure regarding child-support.
To clean up such legal shortcomings and loopholes would for sure reduce the number of complaints by MRA regarding payment of child support by fathers considerable. I think, not only in Europe, but also in the USA.
Yohan, of course custody and child-support laws should not be biased against fathers who are primary caretakers. To answer one of your questions, in the US, there is something called the “presumption of paternity”. An unmarried man has to prove he is the father of his female partner’s children–generally through signing a paternity affidavit of some sort, but if there is a dispute, he may have to prove paternity through court proceedings.
A married man, however, is legally presumed to be the father of his wife’s children. That presumption can be rebutted in some circumstances.
Nick, if the two parents alternating work and time with the kids is the optimal arrangement after the divorce, why wouldn’t it be so during marriage? The economics are identical.
If it’s better that both parents work and spend time with the kids, so that the family has the security of two sources of income and the kids can bond with both parents on a more equitable level, then fine. This should be true both before divorce and after.
If it’s better that one parent works, pursues a career, works his/her way up the corporate ladder, while the other specializes in child care and housekeeping, then fine. The same should be true after the divorce.
The economics don’t really change before and after – oh sure, there are some menial details such as the transaction cost of the divorce itself, the inability to hold joint property, but these don’t affect my argument much, especially since the latter can be remedied by court order in all the relevant cases. No, the only thing that’s changing before and after with a single income family is the party being asked to make the big sacrifice for the kids – stay-at-home mommy before, working daddy afterward. Yours isn’t an economic consideration, Nick, they’re value judgments – and it’s painfully clear just what those values are.
The economics are identical.
Er, no they aren’t. After the divorce there are two separate households with two autonomous economic decisionmakers. The cost of maintaining two households alone is sufficient to destroy any parity in the two economic situations, let alone the costs which you classify as trivial, which aren’t.
Eh. My last post wasn’t exactly a bastion of semantic clarity, so I’ll refer you back to my post #322:
“Given the new realities, it’s unrealistic to expect the mother to be able to take care of her children full time as before.”
The ‘new realities’ are precisely those that your objections present – although I fail to see how there *weren’t* two autonomous economic decisionmakers even before the divorce. Scroll up and read it in its entirety.
[From same post]: “But if we’re accepting that having mommy at home is needed … it makes sense for her to receive enough in support payments so that she can spend as much time with [the kids] as possible.”
Assuming a father-goes-to-live-in-a-singles-apartment scenario, his new living expenses aren’t equal to zero but are considerably less than those than those of a household with children. So let’s add them into the equation. Because there are more expenses, mom’s gotta work – but because kids are still kids, let’s keep mom home as much as possible. He still works and contributes to the family as much as he did before in order to maximize her time raising the kids, though she’ll have to supplement with a job of her own now.
We don’t do things this way; in real life, it’s the reverse. It’s her income that’s the bread and butter of the family, with his contribution being the smaller added supplement. Note that from Nick’s standpoint, this is lose-lose – both parents are working, and the kids spend little or time with their mom. In the scenario above, they at least get more, even if not as much as they did before the divorce. But it’s not Nick’s standpoint, or quaint notions about mommy needing to stay at home, or economic efficiency, that leads us to our current arrangement. It’s a basic idea of fairness. Since he lost the kids, he’s the ‘loser’, and it hardly seems fair for him to give up the majority of his disposable income to her control and discretion, good faith that it will all go to the kids notwithstanding.
The thing is, no one who presently advocates single income households would agree to anything like the hypothetical I offered above. They’d argue that it’s completely unfair to him, the kids be damned – and I quite agree, I quite agree. In fact, since I never claimed the kids had to be with their mommy to begin with (at least to a much lesser extent), I don’t even have to see this as a tradeoff at all.
But they were so willing to martyr *her* economic autonomy during the marriage with their offertories on the virtues of stay at home motherhood, that this position starks in contrast – almost as if the kids were never the primary concern to begin with.
Clear now?
Well, I just wanted to say that there are legitimate women in this world, who DO NOT WANT TO TAKE A MAN FOR EVERYTHING THAT HE IS WORTH. When I initiated the end of the marriage, I went and started the separation papers and I did not ask for everything and the kitchen sink. All I asked for was:
*Live in the house (WOW, a 1985 dble wide mobile home with a $586 mth mortgage which I am paying)
*Primary Custody of the 2 children — I work 1st shift and he works 2nd shift and I have always been the primary caregiver for the children since the day they were born
*And Child Support ($725.00 per month, which is actually about $100 less than what he should be paying)
*I Keep the 2006 Honda Accord (and the $370 a month payment)
*And I pay the $2520.00 in daycare per year
I told him that I DID NOT WANT:
Alimony
the 2005 Honda Motorcycle (Paid for)
the 1997 Ford F150 (Paid for)
the 1969 Ford Ranchero (Paid for)
None of his 401K
None of his Retirement
And that he should pay the consolidation loan of $571.00 per month
** I have spoken to alot, and I mean alot of people, male and female, who have gotten divorced, they have been both the child support recipient or the child support payer and everyone of them told me that I was not unreasonable in any of my requests. He thinks that $400.00 a month is enough to support 2 children. When school started recently, I spent over $600.00 just buying some jeans, shirts, socks, underwear and school supplies for my children. And please understand that I am the type of woman that shops @ Walmart, Old Navy and Kohl’s and Gooy’s for sales…. and if you think that I would ever pay more than $50-$60 for a pair of sneakers for my kids, then you are crazy. There is no way that I would ever waste more money on a pair of sneakers than I do on an electric bill. So, please understand, the child support is definetely needed by some women and I am one of those women that make $31,000.00 per year and still have a hard time financially. I don’t even go to get my hair done on a regualr basis, much less get anything else done. I pluck my own eyebrows…. please don’r assume that everyone woman is out to take everyone man down.
Nor am I a gold-digger..I was never married to the Non-Custodial parent but we were together for only about the first year of the child’s life. I left because of abuse and his propensity for drugs and alcohol. To which I was a single mother for a short time and than married my current husband. All I ever wanted was for the non-custodial parent to be the parent he should be including physically, emotionally, and monetarily. He never did and allowed my husband to work two jobs, and I worked as well to send our son to a better school and give him all life should have given him with not a peep or paycheck from the absent father. Last year I was diagnosed with cancer and asked for support from the non-custodial parent again because serious lifestyle changes were taking place, including my husband quitting one of his jobs to help me in my time of treamtent, hopitilization, etc….I got a good swift kick of reality. No, no and forget it! He lives with his ex-wife who supports him and the courts allow it….How much more do we sacrifice so the child can eat? I guess “gold-diggin” parents give those who need it a bad name as “deadbeat parents” give good parents a bad name.
Just found this site while surfing for advocacy groups for help with a child support problem I’m very much in need of like experiences and ideas. Court date is looming and I really dont know any more than when I started this desperate search. I’m not sure if I am supposed to tell the whole ugly tale here or somewhere else. If people on this site are able to contact one another…I can simply pose this question. Once the minor child reaches 18 and there is a large arrearage owed…is it better to let the CSE pursue it…where it will eventually become a judgement against him if he doesnt comply…OOORRRR…should I sue him civilly myself? End result will probably be the same…but I might save a few years if I dd it myself. I dont even know if you can civilly sue for unpaid child support.
Interesting comments, as I am almost done with 16 years of child support for two kids. I now have another by a second wife and I can say that I wouldn’t trade a dime for the amount of joy my children have given me. However, not very many parents are as lucky as I am to have full support of there ex-wifes. I must say that I even had a time or two that I contemplated a trip to Belize to avoid the comments like. “Gee, I have a blue set of roller blades, wish you would send the check so I can buy a matching pair in green”. But luckly for all involved, that type of behavior didn’t prevail, and love was the outcome. Trust me, it is not about the money, or paying it. It is about the love for the kids. If that is the focus, all three parties win.
I’m on the other side of the table. I’m not the father who is trying to get out of payment while complaining that men have no rights, and railing against my golddigger child’s mother. We’ve actually reached a pretty sensible agreement which involves more money than I see most people talking about here. I don’t know whether the lawyer I to whom I spoke has given me bad advice, or what, but he has given me the impression that child support laws don’t favour people like us who don’t want to fight over every dime and go through a bunch of red tape and court hearings. He tells me there is no real way we can just set out a voluntary agreement and go through with it and have it recognized by the courts, that even though we are both in agreeement want to settle this amicably and avoid a bunch of court procedures, we have no choice but to go through a court hearing. So basically as I understand it from him there are all kinds of procedures to make it easier on parents chasing deadbeats, and all kinds of loopholes deadbeats use for getting out of payments, but the procedure is actually harder on parents in agreement doing the right thing?
Dave, I don’t know Georgia law, but personally I would be *awful* suspicious of any lawyer who said “There’s no way for you to agree to something fair, you have to fight it out.” That strikes me as somebody who’s more worried about his next mortgage payment than what’s best for you.
Dave, I’m not in Georgia either, but my children’s father and I settled our visitation/child support entirely out of court. We drew up a contract using just one of those lawyer form programs you can buy for 30$ that include basic wills/power of attorneys/etc. We each have a signed/noterized copy. We never even filed anything with the courts. When I contacted our state child support aid center, we were told that if we don’t have a problem, they don’t have a problem. To get the arrangement in writing and hold on to it. We would never need to go to court unless there was a conflict that we couldn’t solve ourselves. They said the only circumstance in which it might need to be filed ‘officially’ is if one of us or the children were recieving state or federal aid (like medicaid). Otherwise, we are free to handle it on our own. So we did. I would also be very suspicious of what your lawyer is telling you.
I hate to come off all right wingy but this whole child support mess just drives home the fact that two parents living and working together is better than two parents living and working apart; especially when you try to give this sort of monetary value to rearing a child! I know from my own childhood experience that the “traditional” family model isn’t perfect.
I was just talking to my mother last night and she told me how my father (Now deceased so you’ll just have to take my Mom’s word for it) kept all his money for himself but liked to use her money for ALL the family expenses! He only opened his wallet if my mother ran out of money and something big like the house note, her care payment, the kid’s braces, utilities, etc, came up. And then she had to plead with him and it always made her feel really shitty and totally debased! I can’t count how many times I did my homework by hurricane lamp light because we had to wait for him to get home so Mom could beg for cash! Had he not died (And left us with no will and bills up the wazooo!) she would have divorced him and I would have most assuredly been one of those dead beat dad having kids people are always talking about.
But even with all that I still think breaking the care of kids down like this just isn’t working. Parents don’t divide things like that! Couples have joint checking accounts and whoever has the cash/credit card pays when services are rendered. Mom may carry the kids on her insurance because she makes slightly more money than Dad or Dad carries the kids because he has better benefits even though he’s paid slightly less than Mom and so one and so on! I know the system is flawed and creeps (Both male and female) get by while good people suffer but something has to be said about how these things begin.
I think, for starters, our culture needs to stop using divorce as a crutch and put more work and money into helping couples stay together. It’s too easy for people to get married in the first place and just as easy for them to call it quits. Growing up I would have loved to have had the “Relationship Cops” break down my parents door and threaten to throw them both in jail if they didn’t work things out but sadly there was no such thing and there will never be because we all have the right to choose who we hook up with (Either through marriage or casual dalliances) and to do whatever we please and to think everything will work out alright in the end. Unfortunately, this line of thinking has lead us down this current path and we’re left scrambling to come up with something…anything to help us get out of the ditch we’ve dug for ourselves.
I don’t know what the answer is but I’m just so tired of people not taking responsibility for their actions then thinking our bone headed government, or any government, can fix what we’ve broken. Again, I don’t have the answer but I’d be willing to work at finding a solution. Who’s with me? [End Rant.]
“Who’s with me?”
Not me, for one.
You do come across all right-wingy. And pretty scary, too. I know a lot of people who watched their mother’s be beaten and abused who wouldn’t have wanted “relationship cops” to come in and enforce “getting along.” I’m sure that would be a lovely recipe for more abuse — as, in fact, it is.
Your opinion here comes across as pretty short-sighted and self-centered.
Not to mention it was completely contradictory….Dad was a jerk to Mom and took all her money, but it’s a good thing they didn’t divorce and no one else should be able to, either.
???
Pingback: dead-beat dads and child support « mmm, brains!
Really I guess it all comes down to this scripture:
2 Timothy 3:1-5 “But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobidient to parents, unthankful, disloyal. 3 Having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, head strong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasurers rather than lovers of God 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power and from these turn away.
Truly these deadbeat dads are lovers of themselves, lovers of money, disloyal….HAVING NO NATURAL AFFECTION for their own children and mother of those children.
Complain complain complain about supporting the children they made.
I guess I should not be so surprised by the deadbeat dads out there as it was fortold. But I still can’t mentally accept that the father of my child is that selfish and emotionally void.
1 Timothy 5:8 – Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own and especially for those who are members of his household he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.
2 Thessalonians 1: 6 -9 This takes into account that it is righteous on God’s part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for you. 7 but to you who suffer tribulation relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his pwerful angels 8 in a flaming fire as he brings vengenance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength.
2 Peter 3:13 – But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise and in these righteousness is to dwell.
There will be no deadbeats in the righteous new world. It will finally be a relief from all our toil and struggle. It will be like this……
Isiaih 65:21 And they will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and they will certainly plant vineyards and eat [their] fruitage. 22 They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will not plant and someone else do the eating. For like the days of a tree will the days of my people be; and the work of their own hands my chosen ones will use to the full. 23 They will not toil for nothing, nor will they bring to birth for disturbance; because they are the offspring made up of the blessed ones of Jehovah, and their descendants with them. 24 And it will actually occur that before they call out I myself shall answer; while they are yet speaking, I myself shall hear.
25 “The wolf and the lamb themselves will feed as one, and the lion will eat straw just like the bull; and as for the serpent, his food will be dust. They will do no harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,” Jehovah has said.
Whoops! Better watch out Cindy Shuttleworth or they’ll jump on you like they jumped on me…
Glamour Diva, if you don’t have a substantive response, then please don’t respond at all. No one “jumped” on you; they disagreed with you. Learn the diff.
Cindy, a term like “deadbeat dad” is problematic for two reasons; it assumes that all non-custodial parents are fathers, and it makes no distinction between non-payers who are just too poor, versus non-payers who are choosing not to pay.)
Many “deadbeat” dads (and “deadbeat” moms, as well) don’t pay child support because they’re poor — poverty is a significant predictor of whether or not someone pays child support (although it’s not the only predictor). It’s not just a matter of morality; some folks honestly can’t afford it.
There’s a third reason: It frames as “deadbeat” just those individuals who fail to pay child support. However there are many ways that mothers and fathers can neglect their children.
In respect of Cindy, the problem is that she is citing a text whose authority many of the people here do not accept.
Glamour Diva, may I suggest without any snark at all that you’re looking at your parents’ marriage through the eyes of a child–which is fine if the subject is “how are children affected by a crappy marriage?” but says nothing at all about “what should our laws be in regard to divorce and child support?”.
I think the system is terribly broken. The father of my daugher left when I was pregnant. For years, he skipped out on support and then they made the amount $176, which it remains today. Despite the fact that I have STOP receiving support many times when he decided not to work, I’ve finally gotten used to not having it. If it comes, it comes. If not, then no big deal.
Not too long ago, I tried to have the amount re-evaluated since my daughter was a teenager. Even though he has a very good job and makes more than $45,000, it was denied. Somehow he produced documents that showed it would place too much hardship on his current family and his other children. FRANKLY, I give up!
Yes mythago that is exactly it! Thanks! Through the eyes of a child. Finally someone got that and doesn’t see me as some screaming religious zealot neo-fascists! I’m not married and I don’t have any children AND I am all grown up but I still, sometimes, see marriage through those same eyes. My parent’s marriage was my first example of what “Marriage” is so it makes sense that I might feel the way I do. Sure I know there are many contributing factors to why relationships end. I even know that some marriages should end but the point that I was trying to get across (and failed at miserably) was that one way to help fix the child support issue, because I believe there are many fixes to go with the many reasons why marriages fail, is to take a serious look at 1. The real reasons why people get married/cohabitate in the first place and 2. Free or sliding scale counseling for those who can’t afford it so maybe they can work on solving their marital/relationship woes. Sometimes I think divorce is seen as the ONLY option and then it happens and we’re left with the fall out (of which child support payments is a major part) and scrambling for solutions to the problems we’ve created.
All I ask is that people have a little foresight…just a bit…before they make this type of commitment and add children to the mix! How many people have grown up watching their parent’s troubled relationships and then gone on to have the same troubled relationships? Vicious circle anyone? I don’t think there is any quick answer to the current child support conundrum because I honestly think, even with my background, that it takes two people (Married or Cohabitating in case you think I’m only pro-marriage) to properly raise children AND…and it’s cheaper! Having two households will always be more expensive than one unless both parties are making over 50k after taxes. Add to that the fact that our finances tend to be rather fluid during our lifetimes (lay-offs, going back to school, changing industries, etc.) and it’s easy to see why this is such a contentious and important subject. My point in my original post was that I just think that if people honestly thought that children are the most important part of the equation then they would put more effort into doing what ever they could to help them. That includes, but is not limited to, making relationships work. If both parties put their all into it and it still doesn’t work then so be it, you tried!
Just a thought, maybe off the top payments are the problem? Maybe child support should be handled just like child care is handled in real life? When two people split each partner is assigned certain tasks: Jo pays for daycare, clothing and insurance and Jack carries the kids on his taxes, pays for extracurricular activities and travel between parents. Everyone knows that spreading out a payment is better than putting everything into one lump sum. Or a joint account where both parents are required to put in a certain amount of money toward support? Or maybe even tailoring support to fit the family and not what makes things easier for the courts? Creative thinking, instead of bickering and blame placing, might be the key here.
But why do I even bother as I’m sure I’ll be told how ignorant and naïve I am in a thoroughly snotty, academic response…hit me with your best shot!
“But why do I even bother as I’m sure I’ll be told how ignorant and naïve I am in a thoroughly snotty, academic response…hit me with your best shot!”
No. As long as you insist on whining about not having ticker tape parades thrown for your trite meanderings, you’ll get no response at all.
“Dear Editor: I am sure that you will not have the courage to print this letter. Should you do so, I expect that you will receive the usual, vitriolic screams of outrage from your ignorant and mis-informed readers in response.”
There is nothing new under the sun…
“Child Support” the reason why politicians should not intefere with a woman’s right to choose abortion.
I’m so sick and tired of non-custodial parents that complain about what they must pay in child support.Trust me what you pay a month is nothing compared to what the custodial parent provides.
Your child needs a bath which requires both cold and hot running water.
Your child needs to eat home cooked meals which requires gas or propane for providing the meals.Not to mention the gas that it cost to make the trip to the grocery store where the hardworking custodial parent spend at least 30 minutes of their time in line.Thus doing so after a hard days work.
Your child needs clothes.If you the non custodial parent took time to actually spend time with your child you would know the following:
feet tend to grow pretty fast,certain weather conditions require certain clothes such as raincoats and umbrella’s for rain.Hats and coats in the winter which yes a child can outgrow in a season.Shorts and tank-tops in the summer.Hello!!! you don’t want your child being the outcast wearing winter clothes especially in Texas weather.
Your child needs dental care.That alone can cost hundreds even with insurance.
And what about those ever popular school field trips that require a sack lunch from home and an admission fee to the musem?
What the hell are you thinking? that it is easy to visit the local Target or Wal-Mart without your child having a desire for the latest toy or any random item.
When have you the non-custodial parent stayed up till 4 in the morning cleaning vomit,doing battle with a fever,knowing full well that you had to walk out the door to get to work at 6am.
What do you the non-custodial parent know about reading with your child for 30-40 minutes every night while having to complete your own homework?
And what about those extra curricular activites?
So many political figures out there that claim to support a bigger and brighter future for children through education.Hello!!! hows about passing a bill to make it mandatory for non custodial to contribute for things such as girlscouts,boyscouts,martial arts,baseball,football,ballet,since it all goes to help broden one’s horizon’s.
Hmm….I would go on and on but that duty calls.The little one just had a bad dream.Where the hell is the non-custodial parent to help calm the child down?
I totally and completely agree with Marie… I could never, ever get my ex to understand just how much money went to the children… money for this, money for that… everytime I turn around I am writing a check for lunch money, field trips, book orders at school (not every month, but occassionally) then there is daycare and they go on field trips @ daycare during the summer… my youngest doesn’t want to be the only one without a little spending money on the field trip, so there goes another extra $5.00 for that trip… it all adds up… When you have a 15 year old, they would like an allowance and $10.00 a week doesn’t sound like much, but it adds up and who do you think will be paying for the car insurance in a few months when he turns 16 years old… You guessed it, Mom. I have finally had to buckle down and refuse to order anything from the fundraisers that are sent home from school… and boy does that break my little one’s heart… but I have no choice… I love my kids and I am doing the best that I can and they both know that.
The system definetly doesn’t work. My ex pays $334 a month for 4 children. He went to court and lied about what he made. He pays nothing else!!!!! He has not seen the children in 6 years and agreed to have my new hubby adopt them. However he has a bug up his ass now and wants to be daddy again. The courts have already taken his visitation away. I have never asked the man for more money, called if the kids need anything or asked for reimbursement of medical. He lives in another state and I leave him alone. Now he thinks that he sends too much and that none of his money is to go toward “my mortgage or bills”. someone needs to educate noncustodial parents (whether male or female) as to what support is used for. Like having a roof over our heads just benefits me and the food and heat only benefit me. So this is not bashing dads…just all noncustodials who really have no idea the day to day expenses of a child. I am sorry even you see them on weekends you still have no clue of what it costs.
The reason child support fails in so many ways is because you have the government intruding in your life and deciding what they think things should be. In theory its a great idea and I’ve always thought that both parties should be responsible since I doubt any children are being born from immaculate conception. I think that parents should go into a contract when deciding to get divorced not a government standard of forced good intentions. I also think it would be a much more effective way of solving issues when one or the other party fails to uphold their part of the contract. When something is a legal binding contract it is taken much more seriously in a court of law. When government is involved things slip through the cracks and I’ve seen a lot of abuse of power. Honestly if you read some of the rules/laws it looks like it was written by a vindictive and abusive person. I was in shock to read some of the things they can do. How does taking someones license away solve anything? Are you trying to guarantee them no luck getting hired? To tell an employer that you have a revoked license now puts you in the undependable category and makes them far less interested in you. Destroying someones credit report so that they cannot get a loan to even pay backed support off…that’s helpful right?They can take a maximum of 60% of your monthly income unless for whatever reason you fall behind 12 weeks or more then it can go up an additional 5%. How does that solve anything? Why make a bad situation worse? Everyones situation is different and things happen from time to time that are unexpected and out of ones control. You cannot just make one set rules for all…it doesn’t work or make sense. If you think well just call/write them and fix it then you’ve never dealt with these people before. They are the equivalent of the forced labor serving community service at the recycling center. Inept would be the best word to describe the employees. These laws really need revision and common sense added.Obviously you can’t make everyone happy but I think that a much better system could and should be implemented.
I am sure that there are so many custodial parents , like myself, that tried and tried to work things out away from court, but could not get the other parent to understand how much money it takes to raise children… my soon to be ex left me no choice but to take him to court for child support… he thought that giving me $400 a month for 2 boys was good enough because he was a “good man” when the law states that he has to give me $698 a month… I see no problem with getting government involved with things because I have nothing to hide and everything to protect, namely my 2 children, who did not ask to be put in the middle of this nasty divorce… which I have tried very hard to be nice about but he is being a
^&*%$$^& about and is being so very very selfish.
I’m not saying everyone is perfect by any means. I also am not saying that there are not people will take get away with not helping out. Read this and tell me you still think government needs be involved. If you think they are in it to help your children and you out then you are disillusioned. Oh and in case anyone was unaware,you have to pay $375 an hour if you have to have court approved visitation. Is prostituting peoples children to them really necessary? Here read this http://www.ohiofathersrights.com/HR_1386_2007_Child_Support.html . I am a mother of 5 so I am well aware of the cost of raising children.
Government still needs to be involved.
Is this referring to a drivers license… and if it is, what does that have to do with paying child support… why would the person’s DL get revoked if they did not pay child support… Maybe I am in the dark about these things, but can someone enlighten me and tell me if this happens in NC… And by the way, while I was awaiting temporary child support, I was penny pinching and my kids ate mac & cheese most of the time…. I have paid the mortgage on time every month… which makes HIS credit look great… and he has totally screwed up mine because he stopped paying the ONE bill that I asked him to pay (unfortunately it is a joint acct)…
And just maybe, when the deadbeats let their license get revoked, let their credit go to %^&*, etc… maybe they brought it on themselves like my ex did… took him to court about the ONE bill that he needed to pay… The judge said that he had to pay it… SO WE ARE LOOKING AT A COURT ORDER NOW… That was 1-4-08… it is now 2-8-08 and he has not paid 1 dime on this bill… my attorney has had to file a contempt order on him… Sorry man, he has brought it all on himself, it is either him or me and I am not going to have the bank come looking for me now that the bill is 3 months past due
Look, I think that men shouldn’t be screwed when it comes to child support, but far too many feel they are in that position when in reality they aren’t even paying half of what it costs to raise a child. It’s expensive guys! I am on the other side of the coin – a custodial mother with a scumbag ex-husband who hasn’t paid child support in over a year. He has skipped town and managed to throw another road block in the situation by getting interstate child support agency involved which is a really lengthy and terrible process. I was recently told by someone at the child support agency that the reality of the situation is that I may never see a dime of child support. I know that there are a lot of people out there in exactly the same situation. It’s sad that the system is so fractured and that on a website like this, the focus is on the parent instead of the child. In the situation I’m dealing with, I find it difficult to sympathize with you when I stand to lose every asset I have worked to acquire while my ex is being rewarded for bad behavior by getting off the hook. He told me that he has joined some online support groups and is trying to get the amount of support reduced. I’m not sure how it can be reduced from $0 (what he has regularly paid to take care of his child). He said that he is not paying out of spite to me. He seems to be directing this at me instead of worrying about caring for his child. This is about the children and what is fair and what it’s going to take to do your job in caring for them.
WHY do I have to abide by visitation agreements, why can’t they take all parental rights away from him? He is CHOOSING not to take care of his child. WHY does HE have rights???? What about my rights?
“But why do I even bother as I’m sure I’ll be told how ignorant and naïve I am in a thoroughly snotty, academic response…hit me with your best shot!”
No. As long as you insist on whining about not having ticker tape parades thrown for your trite meanderings, you’ll get no response at all.
“trite meanderings”? Wow that’s pretty harsh! Let’s not forget that not everyone is fluent in the language of academia. Maybe “Glamour Diva’s” posst weren’t as eloquent and chock-full of large words like some of the other posts on this blog but the core of what she wrote still rings true-many people do not think about the consequences of divorce (Child support being one of them) when they are scurrying down the isle or even producing children without the benefit of marriage/civil unions, what is in the best interest of the child is often lost in the emotions of the parents, and it takes a ton of money and time to properly raise a child which are both more difficult to find when two formerly married parents are holding together two households. There were several posts after hers that said as much and those posters were allowed to share their feelings on the subject without reproach.
Let’s not shame people by labeling them “religious zealots” or use our education/advanced writing skills to silence those who have a differing opinion. This smacks of elitism which I KNOW Alas is not about and is thoroughly against!
Mary,
Yes, there are many instances in which the non-custodial parent isn’t paying half, or even close to half, of what it takes to raise a child. But when people fail to qualify their statements they cross the boundary between truth and fiction. It’s the amount of fiction running around out there that is creating so much of the conflict.
In cases where non-custodial parents are in compliance with both child support orders and their exercise of child custody times, non-custodial parents often pay well in excess of the total cost of raising a child by a single parent.
The two main causes are the methods used to calculate support orders (per-capita versus incremental cost) and the difference in wages between custodial (most often women) and non-custodial (most often men) parents.
The State of Texas standard visitation order is comparable to those of a great many states. They provide for 28 weekend periods of possession per year (odd numbered weekends), 52 mid-week periods of possession, a month of summer possession, and alternating holidays that amount to an average of 2 additional weeks. There is, of course, some overlap because some of those weekends and mid-weeks are during holidays or other alternating periods of possession, so one would have to use an actual calendar. Using 2008, that should be be 161 out of 366 “overnight periods of possession” under a standard custody order (and I used the average for holidays because I forget which go which way during odd or even years, and I don’t know the ’08-’09 school calendar yet, or a 44/56 time share. For parents, such as myself, who have additional possession time so we can take our children to extra-curricular activies, the total can approach 50/50 time share. The number I’d have (I’m currently in a custody fight over child discipline, so things are different at the moment) this year is 177 out of 366 days, or 48/52 time share. I actually gave up time during my “summer period of possession” because otherwise I’d have 187 of 366, or 51/49 time-share. That’s how close some parents are to 50/50.
What that means — a 44/56 time-share — is that the costs of the child are borne by both households, equally in proportion primarily to income. If a child needs a bedroom with one parent, they need a bedroom with another. Utilities at both homes, groceries, food, clothing, insurance, parental car and gasoline, and other such expenses. Those costs aren’t paid only by the custodial parent, they are paid by both, except that child support goes only one way, and in most states custody time-share isn’t included. What this means is that in a properly functioning, joint-custody arrangement, the non-custodial parent pays not only to support the child at the custodial parent’s home, but also theirs.
It is because of the wage disparity between the sexes, that if the custody time-share rises above that disparity, that the non-custodial parent is paying more in total than what the custodial parent would pay without the custody arrangement. Taking women’s wages at 80% of men’s, if a man is a non-custodial parent with 40% or more time-share (greater than 40/60), the non-custodial parent’s total contribution exceeds 100% of the total cost of raising a child if the child had one home, assuming the state guidelines are established for 50/50 financial support of the child’s expenses. REMEMBER: This is explicitly the case where both parents are actively parenting, not the case where one parent runs off and abandons the kid.
It’s this ability to do math that is behind much of the conflict. If “M” earns 0.80 times “D”, and “20% net-after-taxes” is “D”‘s share of “C” expenses (Texas guidelines for a single child), “M”‘s expenses are 0.80 * 0.40 – 0.20, or 0.12 times “D”s net-after-taxes wages. Meanwhile, “D” expenses are 0.40 0.20, or 0.60 time “D”‘s net-after-taxes wages. That is, assuming the full-year cost of a single child is 40% of M’s net-after-taxes, which is itself 80% of D’s net-after-taxes (progressive tax rates insure this is incorrect), and D pays 20% of D’s net-after-taxes income as half the total cost, the cost to D is 5 TIMES the cost to M, and 4 TIMES after adjusting between income levels. It’s the fact that this situation leads to paying 60% of net-after-taxes for what is supposed to cost 40% of net-after-taxes income that creates this myth. Raising M’s costs raise D’s costs, and lowering M’s costs increase the amount of support that is simply a subsidy of M’s personal expenses. REMEMBER: This is explicitly the case where both parents are actively parenting, not the case where one parent runs off and abandons the kid.
What this means is that the myth is both true and false. It is undeniably true for those non-custodial parents who are fully-involved, and 44/56 is pretty close to “fully-involved”, and fully-compliant with state mandated guidelines. Paradoxically, most of those non-custodial parents just don’t care that we pay “too much” because we know it costs money to raise kids. It is false for those non-custodial parents who are either not involved (their cost falls to 20% of net-after-taxes income from people like myself whose costs are 60% of net-after-taxes income), or not compliant with support orders (their cost falls to 0.00 of net-after-taxes). They are the ones — the non-compliant, non-custodial parents — who complain the loudest. They use support payments as a weapon against their former spouses or partners and feel completely justified in doing so (even if they are stupid f*cks for feeling that way).
What is needed, I think, is for custodial parents, as well as compliant non-custodial parents, to re-work the system so that all actively involved parents are properly supported by the legal system with fair and equitable support and custody orders, while punishing those parents who refuse to be involved or refuse to pay support. Such a system would be responsive to periods of possession and exercise of custody, adjusting the transfer of monies to more accurately reflect the actual expenses each party experiences.
Furrycatherder thanks for the thoughtful, easy to understand, and reasonable reply on the issue posted.
This year is my last year on both my kids (22, 17) child support here in Texas. I help with my girl’s college fun money, and will do so with my son. We set up college plans long ago to take care of that expense. With Child support, there have been good times and bad times through out the child support issue. I was lucky enough to be able to say it is not about the money, its about the love. However, when the Child Support Office sent me a letter that said I was one of the top ten people who didn’t pay for the last year, then I was ticked off. Since I had written a check for 20,000 so I wouldn’t have to be bothered with the payments. Oh, yes, that would be her lawyer who forgot to post the check with the state……Hmmm,, so is it always smooth just because you want and do the right thing? Not at all, the state is the state, and when it comes to means to collect, they are creative. They actually have to be, see I have no beef with people whose job is less than thankful everyday. They are faced with the job of trying to force money out of people who have had there feeling hurt (divorce) and are not very giving because of the situation. Most of the time, I had it right in my head that I was giving to my children for there support, which I loved, and realized that it was all good. Then one day I got a surprise!!! One of my bosses didn’t pay any child support but was using my money to run his business on. Sounds stupid, but to get the money, we had to finally give up on the courts, and he and I had what you might say was a closed-door communication session. He wrote the check, I didn’t go to jail, and it changed my way of thinking. It put me on the other side of the fence; I then realized how an ex-wife feels when the check doesn’t come, so she can buy groceries, or cloths. She feels the same way I felt, when I learned that my boss was stealing my money, and not sending it on to the courts.
So, trust me, it makes me feel good be caught up on arrears. And, I guess almost at the end of the journey as far as formal payments.
If I had it over would I do it different? Probably not, the same mistakes would be there…. but my attitude would be different. Best of luck, and share the love. gw
Response to furrycatherder –
You are right. Unfortunately, the men who I would consider “whining” aren’t paying child support, aren’t taking care of any other parental obligation and have all but abandoned their children. That then leaves a smaller percentage of men who are truly being mistreated by the system. The deadbeats are the ones who are hurting the men who are trying – not the system. We have a system that is so overwhelmed by the number of men (and women) who are taking advantage that those who are working hard and trying are getting left behind in a system that is supposed to work for them. Unfortunately, because of these dead-beats, there is a huge number of custodial mothers who cannot provide for their children. The ones who are really getting the shaft are the lower end of middle class worker bees – we don’t qualify for any extra assistance because the “system” says that we have too much money. So I watch the women who choose not to work provide the same things (or more) for their children courtesy of the government (in the form of yours and my tax dollars) while I lie awake at night wondering how I’m going to pay for daycare so I can go to work every day. Typically I have to take from one priority to cover another while my ex doesn’t pay a damned dime. He complains about the amount the court has ordered him to pay and doesn’t pay any of it. My state can’t do a thing to him because he left the state when child support was too hot on his trail. So they take his license away – he drives without a license. That seems to be as far as they will take things. When they try to take it from his pay, he quits that job and moves to the next one.
Response to Gerrell –
You should give “man” lessons! The deadbeats could learn a lot from you. It’s about the love, it’s about the children and about how we care for them. The custodial parent realizes that from day one. Unfortunately, there are too many non-custodial parents who think that their participation is optional. In my state the dead-beats have all the same rights (if not, more) as the parents who are taking care of their kids.
Mary,
I hear what you’re saying. Believe me, I do.
The point I was trying to get across is that for every “deadbeat dad” (which Amp ought to ban as a term here, along with some other adjectives applied to other groups) out there, there are countless non-custodial parents who pay on time, actively co-parent, and fully cooperate with the other parent. But no one is ranting and raving about those non-custodial parents, so all we ever hear about are “deadbeat dads”. In all my years of being on boards and blogs, never, not once, have I seen a “My ex-spouse is such a great ex-spouse!” thread where custodial parents scream bloody hell about what a great ex-spouse they have who never screws up on custody or support. It’s not news. Water is wet, and a great many non-custodial parents aren’t monsters.
Agreed – I would love to be the first to be able to talk about a great ex-spouse who lived up to his responsibilities:)
My main point – it isn’t the child support agency and court system screwing things up for the responsible non-custodial parents, it’s the jerks taking advantage of the system and clogging it up so that the system is about as fractured as it can be. Sadly, those folks outnumber the responsible parents significantly.
Thanks for your comments Mary, trust me, I’m like every other Dad, however, I’m greedy, so given the choice of going through life with a chip on my shoulder or enjoying my children, I picked the kids. It was a win win decesion for all involved.
My visitation was so strict at first, I even had a monitor, then it become whenever I wanted, now she beggs me to take them. So if there is a Dad out there, saying, I can’t believe she actually has the court watching me, Get over it, trust me, she wants her freedom, but not at the kids expense. So go with the program, and soon all will be well. And you will have your son, irritating all the folks that came to have a nice quite fishing trip, while your kiddo beats his pole on the railing, poops his shorts, and throws you bait in the water. Yes, you will get all you hope for. Take Care, and enjoy the blessing.
For those of you who are delinquent in child arrears, you should google your name and see if google picks up such delinquency. Many ex-spouses (including myself) are putting the child support delinquencies online using the website http://www.manageyournews.com so that the online world will learn about the delinquency. This put pressure on my ex to pay his arrears! Just an idea.
$280 might not sound that expensive, but in Iowa your forced to also get Full coverage insurance on your child if offered through your employer. About $50-75 dollars a week more. If your working for $7-8 dollars a hour you bring home about $150 a week thats about $600 a month. You can’t receive food stamps or any other help because you gross is to high. There is also no incentives for keeping your child support kept up. The only way to beat the system is to work part time so your not eligible for health insurance or not work at all. You could just move out of this expensive country and avoid all costs…why not the USA is turning into one big prison with the super rich and the super poor and hundreds of thousands of laws putting over 1000 people a day in to jail..the more laws we have the more crimes will be committed.
Monitor:
Is this a private blogg and are the rules of your page? I thought this was a page to encourage talk of a variety of views, grips, and bitches, be it male or female. Surely, if one who believes in opposing views, wants real comments, you can take the bad with the good, or have I been in the wrong blog to begin with.
If I have a blog, and envoke my own rules, that is fair, Just call a spade a spade, that no other views but yours should be allowed. Just don’t open the door up and then tell us that we can’t express ourselves. I’m probably more empathtic toward the cause of child support for women than most men. However, poor monitor edicate will have its own effect.
You are perfectly right in several comments on this page, however, a good monitor will refrain from judgement in order to understand why a person is spilling there guts. If you say,I don’t like your post, so don’t write this or that then maybe your right. So what are you after as a monitor and what your you wish this blog to be? If not all comments are your fancy, then what is the point.
Comments on review”
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.”
My case is a little different than what you are used to hearing about? My husband is a great father, his 20 year old son lived with us for 10 months and we still paid the court ordered amount of child support to his ex wife. One of the reasons I married my husband was because he was a good father to his two children from a prior marriage and my family never had that. My husband was married in Puerto Rico and unfortunately they aren’t as efficient as our great states, but we have been trying for the past three years in everyway imaginable including hiring attorney to resolve a child support dispute.
My husband’s son has been out of his Mother’s house since he was 18 years old and my husband still sent child support. Once the Child support agency ASUME went online, we noticed my husband was only credited for support payments from 2005 thru current. Everything before that date was considered as back support. My husband pleaded with his ex wife to take care of the matter since we live in Ohio and she refused. We sent her copies and mailed the agency check copies and money orders made out to his ex wife totaling thousands of dollars that were never credited. Since his ex wife did not dispute the amount owed, we were told by the agency that there had to be an investigation. We have been back and forth with this for years, pleading for help through phone calls, letters, emails and going there in person. No help was given to us. We finally hired an attorney in February who keeps telling us that it’s almost done, but when we call him he avoids us like the agency.
It’s a real shame that these child support laws were made to protect children and people, but all I’ve seen is how it’s used to protect someone who has taken advantage of the system with no help for responsible people like my husband and myself. My husband is a hard worker and has recently received a promotion and must leave the country for training. Since nothing has been cleared up we took out a loan and double paid his ex wife just so he doesn’t lose his job while our so called lawyer resolves the crediting of his case. Now that his balance is hardly anything, we still can’t get his passport. Puerto Rico blames Washington and Washington blames Puerto Rico while my husband’s job hangs in the balance and our lives further destroyed over such an injustice.
Does anyone know anything about collecting child support from a person employed with Halliburton. Are the same percentages still employed as in the states? or are there loop holes and exemptions for them? I am afraid of getting less than than I get now, which isn’t much 345.00 that he gives me and I pay insurance. My daughter is the second child and the deductible on his insurance is too high. I want to make sure I am doing the right thing if I file. Thanks for any advice.
My case is crazy I have a monthly income of $3,600. My ex’s is $5,100. And I’m ordered to pay $911 per month. My problem is I have a Son that I’m the custodial parent for. I receive $267 per month for him. After taxes and everything else i.e. social security and health care, my bring home is around $1,350. My issue not taking care of my children but the fact that the court system doesn’t take under consideration my son. We struggle because my ex gets almost half of my income. There are times my son has to go without due to the fact I had to use his money to give to my ex. I think the courts need to evaluate house holds a little deeper to determine the amount of support ordered. In addition I could never be considered a deadbeat. My daughter is 5 years old. I have been paying various amounts ranging $400-$600 since we split when she was 2. I’m involved in her life and school. I’m not looking for a pat on the back for doing what I’m supposed to do. I just want my son to have an equal chance at life. I have to remind myself that I can’t be angry but my son is. He knows why we don’t have money or he doesn’t have the things he desires. He is envious of his sister because she everything imaginable. Things she doesn’t need. I have no respect for dads that don’t take care of their kids. But I’m dying trying to take care of mine.
Your’s Truley
The Best Dad Ever.
I live in Texas and I can tell you that person who reported the $1000 minimum is either a liar or seriously misinformed. For one child, the texas rate is 20% of net income. That goes up to 25% of net for two kids, etc.
This is the worksheet used in MA
III. CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION SCHEDULE
A. BASIC ORDER
The basic child support obligation, based upon the income of the non-custodial parent is as follows:
GROSS WEEKLY INCOME NUMBER OF CHILDREN
1 2 3
——————————————————————————–
$0-$100 Discretion of the court, but not less than $80 per month
$101-$280 21% 24% 27%
$281-$750 $59 + 23% $67 + 28% $76 + 31%
(% refers to all dollars over $280)
$751-max $167 + 25% $199 + 30% $222 + 33%
(% refers to all dollars over $750)
For children in excess of 3 covered by the order, the support shall be no less than that for 3 children; should a judge order support at the 3 child level, written findings shall describe the circumstances of the particular case which warrant the minimum order.
Within the discretion of the court, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of the parties, the Basic Order may be either increased or decreased by 2%. An adjustment of 2% shall not be considered a deviation.
Now when i took my sons father to court for child support he did not show up so the court based my support order on someone working 40 hours per week making minimum wage. My sons father was ordered to pay $61.00 per week (he only pays this after the court freezes his account which does not happen until he hits $1000 in arrears and then all he has to do is make the minimum payment, taking him to court would cost me and be financially costly to my child. So women have plenty to be outraged about
A little fun fact. Considering as i’m a grown adult, who should be supporting myself and paying my utilities, and rent. I calculated how much it costs in Oklahoma to raise my 3 year old child who attends FT childcare. If my husband and I were to divorce and to assume that I should cover half of the cost of our child that would be $309.33/mo that is including
$400/mo childcare
$20/mo pullups for at night
$100/mo food
$200/YEAR for Christmas divided by 12 is $8.33/mo
$400/year clothing and shoes which breaks down to $33/mo
$100/year birthday gifts
Thats breaks down to the above $309.33/mo I would be left paying (50%) if my husband and I were to get a divorce, I would be awared approximately $700/mo in child support on top of my husband continuing to carry medical insurance (which in my state, I would not be required as a mother to contribute towards)
So what exactly would I be doing with the additional $400/mo that he would be required to pay based up the 17% income guidelines.
It’s unreasonable for me to expect my husband to provide a BETTER lifestyle for our child if we were to divorce, instead of being intact (and by no means is our child lacking anything) As a mother, am I entitled legally to be paid for my “services” as a mother such as doing laundry, feeding and caring for my child as a mother should? I hardly think that’s fair to my husband. The “system” does not account nor expect mothers to provide any financial support to their own children. It’s totally “out there” for mothers to not work, live off of government subsidies and have the non custodial fathers contribute financially to the child, and medical coverages, while a mother is free to not work or contribute but just continue to have more children
In my state, if you are not married and received medicaide/soonercare (state paid insurance) for the child’s birth, the state goes after the father for the FULL bill for the birth. Why isn’t the mother equally as responsible for that? Does she bear no responsibility in the creation of the child? Where in our world did we go completely wrong that the mothers responsibility ends at caretaking, would it be the same to say that a mans responsibility as a father ends at a check at the end of the month?
I am a FULL TIME working mother… mother of 2 boys, 7 and 16. Their father and I are divorced. I have always worked a fulltime job. Unfortunately my salary has never been as high as their fathers salary. I do feel that it is appropriate that the child support be adjusted according to the income of the 2 individuals so that the children do not suffer. Their lives do not need to change anymore than they already have changed (after their parents have divorced). Just because their father has to pay me child support does not mean that they are now living a better lifestyle than they were before the divorce and neither am I. Just a little information so that maybe everyone will understand where I am coming from:
$238.00 per month for childcare
$160.00 per month for Lunch money, 2 children
$167.00 per month for Car insurance, 16 yr old driver, Liability only
$200.00 Food
$100.00 Clothing/Shoes
$100.00 Misc/Pictures/Field Trips/Sch Suppl/Church Trips/Sch Activities
$ 20.00 Cell Phone for 16 yr old Driver
$100.00 Medications/Toiletries/Haircuts
____________
$1085.00 divided by 2 = $542.50
(And we both have health insurance on the children — they are double insured… which helps out alot, since we don’t have to pay co-pays and deductibles, etc…)
I am paid $698.00 per month in child support, the difference would be the difference in our incomes. I hope this shows that there are mothers out there that are working hard to take care of their children and that we are not all just waiting for a check to come every month. Actually, there is so much more that could be listed… this is actually just an abbreviated version… everyone knows how much it costs to raise a child.
There’s a lot of talk about CS in TX, but I don’t think it’s been mentioned that there’s a cap of around $900 per child. Child support is only applied to the first $7500 per month (raised last year from $6000). It is VERY hard to go back and have that child support increased.
Don’t know how many cases are out there like this, but my ex earns more in interest than he pays in child support. (Yes, I do have copy of his tax returns.) He also gives more to his church than he does to support his kids. This wouldn’t be significant, but for the first decade of our marriage, I worked to put him through all kinds of degrees while he concentrated on school. There is no compensation for women and their children for that sort of lost investment.
I agree with many posts listed here for both Mothers and Fathers. The situations are different, I wish progress could be made on a case by case basis. My husband’s children 16 & 20 are staying with my husband’s family members out of state, their Mother still claims the kids live with her so when the agency calls she then manipulates the kids back into the home with promises of Disney, shopping etc. keep the support coming in, sad isn’t it? I have seen this over and over again for the past 3 years. There are women out here who are profiting from child support while the extended family raises their kids. I have 5 sisters and my Mom who were all single Mothers with no help so I know how rough it is, but it will never excuse this particular Mother for harming her own children for $600 a month.
Over the last few days I have read this blog with much interest. Firstly, I am amazed at how scholarly and responsible most of the comments are here. I have been an CP and an NCP. Judging from the comments here going back almost two years, some are arriving at the correct conclusion that the system is past broken and now enters the realm of tyranny.
In what way is tyranny evident: In the way that innocent peole are being criminalized for the mere fact that they are poor. As stated clearly and eloquently above by Nick. Most CSO are paid via income deduction. What happens when an NCP loses a job? In Florida, where I live, I think the courts have been very sensible. In other states, most notably California, The system is broken. I read the stat that 95% of modification attemps in CA fail and that the fallacy of imputed income reigns supreme.
My story as NCP: I was employed was on income deduction of 600/mo for 1 child and Health insurance and 50K life insurance. The health and life were paid by my employer. Meaning over the previoous 8 years I paid ~50K myself for the upkeep of my child. I was arrested charged with a felony and convicted. Consequently, I lost my job. I was able to make 2 subsequent payments then my saving ran out and I was still unable to find a job. I spoke with my ex and she was sympathetic. She said “it wasn’t your fault and people make mistake and the have to learn from them. File for a mod and I won’t object. When you find another job, I file for a mod”
It took 4 months to get a hearing and I was attempted to be railroaded into the imputed income trap by a very nasty special master. The first action was to set the arrears at 2350$. As I learned the action was from the state, not my ex. All these things were thrown at me by CSE. Towards the end of the hearing they let my ex speak and she informed them the she was able to put the child on her family policy at no extra cost. The master argued with her that the entire cost of the policy should be divided by her total # of kids with 1/4 charged to me.
I could go on about the proceeding, but I won’t. What is my point? My point is that the interaction between to well meaning adults should not be interfered with. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and we are nearing the point where constitutional issues (Debtor’s prison) will cause the system to collapse under it’s own bloated weight. Attorney’s, Private collection schemes, imputed income are all combining to subvert the meaning and practice of it all.
If a person can’t find a job then how are they supposed to pay. It’s as simple as that. Of course kids need to be supported. I supported myself well and my children also. I never felt as if I was being taken advatage of or that the amount was unfair. Until I lost my job. I have done much reading on the subject and have reached the opinion that the intentions are noble but the practice has become corrupt.