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.
Ken, I know that story all too well, been to court many times, seen many people given a bad deal. Personally i got a bad deal for a while, the courts sympathised with my ex for years. Last year i got subpeoned to court, so i prayed a lot, I prayed for god to have my ex be seen for exactly what she was, and it happened. In court i provided all the information the DA wanted, every paper, I provided court documents stating that i was not to be given visitation. At that point the court asked my ex if she would let me see my kids for the first time in years, to which she responded “not a chance in hell” The tides turned real fast, the DA and judge were telling me to fight for custody, they decreased my support, it was amazing, after god knows how many years things finally started to turn around. Be patient, I promise things will get better. On my way out the door I told the DA “seven more years”, The end is near, can’t wait to see her face on that day.
Also please do not advise me on what I should have or could have done. We are both educated people and have exhausted all possible options in trying to get the judge to sympathize with us. I was never once late in my 12 year obligation and my family and I deserved better than this. I went to the family court system for help until I got back on my feet. But instead I was chastised and treated like a common criminal. No one will ever know the stress this placed on my marriage and children. Or the years it will take to recover from it. One lesson I’ve learned is to never place my trust in the family court system again………………
Mythago, surely you know what “imputed income” is.
VVV @599: Indeed I do. “Imputed income” means that if I run off with the pool boy and don’t want to pay my ex any money, I can’t quit my job and tell the judge “Oh, gee, I’m a starving artist, I live below the poverty line” to get out of supporting my kids.
chris @596: meanwhile, if you’re *not* paying your full child support, your ex has to go through that same inefficient court system to try to recover what you’re not paying.
I’m not sure why chris’ anecdotal evidence is supposed to be more or less persuasive than Jenn’s.
Mythago, I don’t understand why you find the idea of helping people living in poverty so sickening. I made a statement and a claim and backed each with economic and factorial data. Do you find my math to be errored? Am I missing a big piece of this puzzle? Are you saying that a NCP ordered to pay child support will never be forced to live off of a monthly income less than the national poverty line average? Based apon both the heading article and current economic standings this does happen. I claim that an NCP whose CS reduces their monthly income below the national poverty level should be allowed assistance, do you disagree? I am not quite sure where you stand on this issue… I was assuming that this blog was about CS payments being too high and in cases where the NCP’s financial situation pushes them into poverty and the financial assistance is not available due to pre support income CS is too high forcing that person into undue poverty with no access to help. I claim that this particular situation needs attention. Do you disagree? and why?
I feel you have made such attempts to discredit me without actually addressing the real issue I had brought up. I would appreciate it if you could address this issue with your opinion and reasoning as to why my opinion may be wrong.
just as a note I am trying to find my “anecdotal evidence” can’t seem to locate it.
Ken I would agree with you, after a certain amount of time I do think c/s should be adjusted down. Especially when the job market is particularly bad as it has been. But I think your argument loses “value” and you lose support when you start throwing in what your ex makes. Focus on your responsibility to your child. That responsibility is not dependent upon what she makes. And she is not required to inadvertently support you and your new family.
Mythago – correct. I use the same inefficient court system. My ex has avoided paying child support for over a year. (and periodic times before that).
He has used the argument I make so much, and his income went down, he shouldn’t have to pay. He has taken matters into his own hands. I guess he thinks his responsibility is ZERO? I’m not sure if he’s thought that out. But at this point, in a way, if you think about it, I’m supporting him to maintain his lifestyle. This won’t last forever, I know the courts system will eventually catch up to him. Eventually.. I hope.
Luckily I do make enough and have lowered my expenses enough that I can get by without child support. It would be nice to have, at this point i’d put it in savings for college (my ex has already stated not to expect him to help with that). Summer times are hard with summer care for two kids. (around $220 a week, all summer).
You know, if he actually saw the kids, or called every now then and then, or did something for the kids, I’d be less annoyed with him. But the consequences of him not paying because HE DECIDED it wasn’t fair is him not seeing the kids either. I guess because of all the uncomfortable feelings he’s caused himself. he’s turned himself into a fugitive and stranger to his kids.
Jenn- (Focus on your responsibility to your child. )
I have a responsibility for ALL my children, not just my ex’s……
I have been very happily married for the past 14 years, to my so called NEW FAMILY. I was making a reference between what I had to live on and what she had to live on. At no time did I ever state that my ex had any responsibility toward financial support of my NEW FAMILY.. And yes, according the court system, both salaries are to be factored in. In fact my NEW WIFE actually had to use her salary to help pay for my ex’s child support.. As for responsibility for my children.. Since my divorce, I have tutored my oldest daughter, bought most of her cloths, paid my support, paid for her cars, taught her to drive, paid her cell service, paid for her under graduate degree and paid for her graduate degree at Harvard. And I plan on doing this for the rest of my children, barring any further financial difficulties. So please do not confuse me with the real dead beat dads out there..
My point was to differentiate yourself from those deadbeats, don’t bring up your ex’s salary. :)
Ken, Jenn, and everyone else:
I think that anecdotes from your personal situations can be useful if they’re used as tools to illuminate the more general issue of child support.
But I think this thread is veering too far towards just discussing personal experiences, and I’m not sure that’s a beneficial discussion for us to be having.
Oh alright!! :)
In general I agree. it’s a myth that child support is too high. I do believe there are cases to be made that certain situations could be handled different.
But that said every study out there states the woman’s standard of living (generally the CP) suffers the most with divorce.
I don’t know a single person who was better off after divorce.
And to the people who say they aren’t going to divorce, they’ve decided it’s not worth it. I thought that too, but although it takes two to marry, it only takes one to divorce. You really never know what’s in store for you!
I appreciate the somewhat akward support. But I brought up both our salaries for the purpose of comparison, not degradation.
But why is comparison necessary? Whether your ex makes 20K or 200K didn’t change your situation. Your situation warranted an adjustment regardless.
And Amp, I’m done with the personal details with this post. :)
I was discussing this with two friends last night, and I realized that I was the only one of the three of us whose parents were still married. Both of the others, their parents divorced when they were kids. I made some comment like, “Of course the money that my dad earned paid for my food and clothes and stuff when I was a kid — he’s my dad,” and both of the others in the conversation said that they couldn’t say that — when they were kids, they knew that if they wanted anything beyond the usual stuff (like, say, a prom dress), then it would turn into a power play between their parents. (My mother worked at a paying job until I was about six, when she got sick and couldn’t work full-time anymore, and my parents decided that, physically and emotionally and financially, it worked out better for her to stay home with us than to work part-time.)
& – Ok, so if we omit any personal experiences when discussing child support, what shall we discuss. The children’s side, no….. that would involve personal experiences, the wife’s side… nope also personal experiences, the husband…naaa also personal experiences. Hmmmm I know.
How about we discuss physics, in particular Quantum. We could use Planck’s Constant, the Copenhagen Interpretation, or my favorite Schrodinger’s Cat Theory, but instead of a cat we place our ex’s in the box. I wouldn’t consider that personal!!!
If we may, i would like to get back on topic.
According to the above article
Basicly admitting that in some cases CS is too high.
So based on that when are CS payments too high?
I would say when a person whose income level after CS reduces beyond the federal poverty level.
The average conus federal poverty level is 19000.00 per person. (per micro economics professor, who is also economy advisor to united states, china, and japan)
That being said a person who makes less than 36000.00 dollars a year or less while paying support of the national average of 23%(federal child support guidelines) stopping at the 19000.00 poverty level are the most at risk for living in poverty without the possibility of assistance.
further information
A person who has a child support order who makes less than the national poverty line is allotted an additional 24000.00 annually in assistance. (Again micro economics professor) This is called the redistribution of income. However, the person who has a child support payment and earns between the poverty line and 36000.00 after deductions for support is now earning less than poverty standards with no possibility of assistance.
I claim that this is a problem, first it causes NCP’s to withdrawl from skilled and higher paying carreers unless that career’s income exceeds 36000/ year. This in turn makes CS payments for those individuals typically lower. I believe for individuals that are exposed to that particular situation should be given assistance.
next claim
I counter this argument with national economic standards
The poverty level for a family of four is 24000.00 (micro economics professor)
economics 101 states that gross wages should be devided into 3 parts, housing food and other.
1/3 for housing
8000.00 per year
~667.00 per month
or ~ 167.00 per person per month
2 parents 2 kids
334.00
1/3 for food
8000.00 per year
667.00/month
167.00/ person per month
334.00
1/3 for other
8000.00 per year
667.00/ month
167.oo per person per month
334.00
334+334+334=1002.00
2 parents
501.00 per month per parent for 2 kids to survive
therefore
250.50 per month per parent for 1 kid to survive.
lets say that the NCP makes 100% of the income for that family, meaning the CP makes no income. therefore the national minimum to raise a child would be 250.50 per month or 12.5% of gross pay towards the rearing of a child.
I can find no evidence nation wide where the percentage of support is 12.5% of gross pay or less, it is allways higher. Therefore CS payments do exceed the cost of rearing a child in most cases. This is the absolute maximum, because the NCP is not capable of making more that 100% of the household income. All variations of income distribution results in a lower percentage.
Conclusion: Therefore by the standards of living of the united states and the united states economic system, CS payments are higher than necessary.
Ho ho ho, jokes about your ex’s. Gosh, that’s funny.
Oh, wait. Not funny. It’s just you fulfilling a stereotype. Try not to do that again, please.
Ken, if you can’t find a way to discuss the topic that fits into this blog, you could always stop leaving comments here. Your choice.
Thinking about the many discussions this blog has hosted about reproductive choice and the implications of exercising choice for both men and women…
A thing I would like to say to NCPs of whatever gender is, when you decide to have a second family with a new partner, maybe you should consider your obligation to your first family before making the decision to have more children. If you can’t afford a second family while maintaining your obligations to the first, well.
(Obviously once children already exist the point is moot, but I can’t think of a time when I’ve ever seen a serious conversation about how a NC father should consider not having kids, or not having more than one kid perhaps, with a new spouse, because his support for his already-existing kids is a pre-existing obligation meaning he can’t really afford a big new family.)
chris @605, perhaps I’m a little slow today, but I’m not seeing “believes chris has not sufficiently supported his point” and “hates the poor” as being synonyms. Can you explain?
Ruchama has already pointed out, repeatedly, that your math and its underlying assumptions make no sense. When pressed on this, you turn to anecdote and pretend that if a situation *ever* happens then we should treat that as evidence that it is the *norm*. As you may remember – or can check, if you look up at your browser there – the title of the discussion is not whether child support payments are ever insanely high, but whether they are typically insanely high.
Chris, your numbers still make no sense, but I don’t have the patience anymore to walk through why. But you’re making a ton of unfounded assumptions there.
As the person who does payroll for a company with more than 50 employees I can say that I’ve never seen a CS garnishment that is unreasonably high when compared to the employee’s salary. Therefore we can say with confidence that CS is never unreasonably high.
/unsupported except by anecdote claims
So &, how long did it take you to research Schrodinger’s Theory before you could retort?
Chris, no matter what numbers you throw together, I still dispute your assumption that “real” income is income minus child support. Unless you can back that up, the rest of your argument is pointless. Would you count a married couple with one child as being below the poverty level if, after you subtracted the part of their income that they spent on their child, what was left was below the poverty line for two adults?
A thing I would like to say to NCPs of whatever gender is, when you decide to have a second family with a new partner, maybe you should consider your obligation to your first family before making the decision to have more children. If you can’t afford a second family while maintaining your obligations to the first, well.
Seriously. One reason among several that we don’t plan on having more kids is that they’re expensive. People are talking about how, if one of the parents lost a job, the family would have to scale back on this or that expense. Well, one of the ways families keep their expenses under control is not having more kids. If it’s reasonable to ask the custodial parent to eat less food, I think it’s also reasonable to ask the non-custodial parent to not have more kids if he can’t support the ones he already has.
But wasn’t the point that you can do precisely that if you run off with the pool boy and your kid. Courts are not going to use material standard of living in custodial decisions, or force you to take paid work, and are going to use the wealth of the marriage to provide for the child – not your ex.
Elusis..are you kidding me!! Straight out of the memoirs of Hitler… So you are saying that once a person loses their job, after 14 years post divorce. Of successfully providing for all their children’s needs, they should sit back and ponder whether moving on with their life was the right move????
And Squid- I’m just going to consider the source:-/
Well Amp, the blog was good while it lasted, but I’ve hit my limit on how much stupidity I can tolerate with those last few posts. None of which were yours of course, have a good one..
james @626: I see that you don’t know what “imputed income” means.
So what the common consensus here is, that a economist to the united states, china, and japan doesn’t know what he is talking about. Or you are saying that my math is wrong
or my assumption that 12.5 percent of gross income is dramatically less than the federal child support guidelines percentage of 23%.
Or that the united states stance on poverty in the united states is wrong?
To get back to my point, again.
when income of a NCP is between a given wage and another given wage. that wage is decreased to less than poverty standard in the united states. These people should be allowed assistance but are denied. Should this be the case?
Also as far as CS being less than what is necessary, it is not. Because federal poverty level standards state that a the lowest amount of money it takes to raise one child is 250.50 per parent. Unless you are in the business of believing that the NCP should be held more than 50% responcible for the financial upbringing of the child. That being said lets assume that the NCP should allways be 100% financially responcible that is only 25% of his gross wages, which in some cases is more than what is ordered but not all the time.
So we are in the business of having the NCP pay 100% of financial obilgations to the child when seperation ocurrs, leaving the CP with 0% responcibility toward the financial responcibilities of that child. That being said those who pay an excess of 25% of their pay towards the rearing of one child are paying an excess of 100% of the minimum financial upbringing of that child. Therefore in almost all cases CS is in excess of the mimimum financial needs of the child. (by needs i mean the mimimum amount of financial monies required for a child to live.) (and poverty means to be insufficiant in amount of money to live.) therefore if you exceed poverty you have enough finances to live, thereby being suficient to raise a child.
You are also saying that i stated that cs being too high is the norm
I refer back to my post
correct me if i am wrong but I do not believe i ever stated it was a norm, just a case, that by the original article and other media confirms is true.
Ken:
One more comment like that and you’ll be banned.
It’s Schrodinger’s cat, not “Schrodinger’s theory.” And I didn’t have to look it up, because it comes up pretty often in the sort of pop culture I like. (i.e., I’m a nerd.) :-p
chris, Ruchama has already addressed all of this. Again.
please elaborate on exactly what fact in that is wrong…
Chris, although you have no blatant math errors, I think your logic is wrong. You can not take the income for a family and divide and separate to determine how much a child costs. A child does not cost 1/3 of the rent budget, 1/3 of the food budget and 1/3 of the “other” budget in a 3 person family.
Do I get your point that the lowest earning NCPs are in a difficult spot? Sure. I argue these people were likely in a tight spot prior to getting married and even married they didn’t have a ton of discretionary income. They lived better married because they had someone to share the load … with their divorce they will need to figure out another arrangements whether it be room mates, family or some other sort of arrangement. Some people have to work two jobs. In turn I will argue those CPs will have to make to make similar arrangements – living with family, work a second job, get a roommate, as the marriage also made their life easier as well.
There is no way to divide out one expense sharing household into two households without each one feeling the burn.
And back to my earlier statement, yes EVERYONE SUFFERS. I don’t mean as in torture, or that I want anyone to suffer… , but we ALL feel the burden of dividing the one house into two.
When I say who should suffer the least, it should be the child. They shouldn’t have to change schools or have their CP work two jobs so they are left unattended. So unless the CP and NCP can work together to get a schedule where each can earn their maximum potential while the other watches the kid, i will side with the CP.. for the sake of the child. But seriously, if a CP and NCP can do that, they probably would still be married. LOL!!!
so poverty does not mean the bare minimum needed to survive?
or that 24000.00 is not the poverty line for a family of four.
http://coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdf
i am actually off just a little about 950.00 in a year.
or that calculating down to a per person rate from the bare minimum needed to survive does not give us the bare minimum needed to survive for one individual?
or i messed up in my math in that example, if so please state exactly where.
or my math is wrong in calculating that 12.5 percent of each parents income is necessary to ensure survival, again please show me why.
Also tell me why 12.5 percent of a persons wages is not enough to support a child when federal poverty states that it is.
jen i was simply using economics to prove my point, economics states that poverty is the minimum level you need to survive, that being said economics states that wages are divided into 3 parts when dealing with poverty thresholds, housing, food, and other. This is taught in all macro and micro economics classes. Therefore a child does cost 1/3 wages /number of people and if you make wages equal poverty you get the absolute minimum financial obligation to raise a child.
The question is although you agree that people in some situations are placed in a bad situation, do those people deserve assistance. I say yes.
If poverty-taxes/3/#people> poverty-taxes-child support/3/#people then the minimum amount of money to survive has been violated,these people need help.
and we can flip the script
if poverty – taxes/3/#people> poverty- taxes+child support/3/#people then the person deserves aid.
chris, Ruchama did elaborate. Repeatedly. You are ignoring the way child support is actually calculated, you assume that what one of your professors gave you as a guideline on how much people ‘should’ spend is what they actually spend, you don’t believe that child support is actually an expense, and you really REALLY don’t seem to understand what federal poverty guidelines mean. (Hint: they don’t mean, “it only costs $200 a month to provide for a child’s basic needs.”)
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml#differences
Poverty is not the minimum to survive.
pov·er·ty
The state of being extremely poor.
The state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount.
Lets take that chart and look at another way.
Poverty rate for one person is 11170,
Poverty for two is 15130
That $3960 is NOT what it costs to raise a child. it’s an insufficient amount. it’s less than the amount to raise a child in positive way.
And I’d like to point out maintaining a level of poverty (which no one would want) for 2 is actually 35% more than 1.
there is your defination of poverty
guidelines
therefore poverty guidelines means the level at which the (in this case) united states government determines that action needs to be taken to prevent a person from having little means of support.
Taxes are known when making the above determination,and constant.
child support is not constant, therefore is more difficult to take into consideration, therefore not considered.
in order to dissuade me from my stance you must therefore prove that it is not possible for wage earner 1 (who is a non-custodial parent) to have less money to live off of than wage earner 2 (one who requires assistance.)because in that case wage earner 1 would be required to survive on less than w2-taxes.
w1-taxes-cs > w2-taxes
we have concluded if w2 < poverty then w2-taxes < poverty
we have also concluded that if w1 = poverty + .01 then w1 – taxes < poverty and
end result w1-taxes – cs < poverty.
Being that i have proven that it is possible for wage earner 1 to have less money than wage earner 2 my view remains the same.
No.
I’m not saying that at all.
Perhaps you’d like to read my comment again, and try your summary a second time?
i never said it took 200 dollars a month to support a child
i actually said the minimum amount to raise a child based on the united states guidlines of poverty, by defination mean that the minimum amount per child before the government decides that action needs to be taken is 250.50 per child per parent per month. or 501.00 per child per household per month. If we can assume that both parents are equally responcible for the financial upbringing then the minimum amount of support for the government to be happy should be 12.5% of each parents income. The government then sais that the minimum amount of support needed is 25% which is 100% higher than the level that the government states is the minimum level, therefore child support is 100% higher than necessary. So to answer the question at the top of the page. By Economic Standards Yes Child Support Levels Are Insanely High.
chris still refuses to look at how child support is actually calculated, but that doesn’t have to stop anyone else.
Again, here’s the link to a child-support calculator for California. You’ll notice that it looks at the amount of time children spend with each parent, each parent’s income and tax-filing status, medical expenses, low-income adjustment, and a lot more factors than chris’ calculation takes into account.
If we plug in each parent making $12K a year (1/2 of chris’ $24K household income), then the form prompts us to enter a “low income adjustment”. So I guess chris gets his concern about impoverished parents taken care of after all! The support payment itself fluctuates with how much time the children spend with their parents, and where they live (i.e. who gets the benefit of the head-of-household deduction).
I will now use your link to prove my point
Monthly Tax/Income Information (Tax Year: 2012)
Type
Parent 1($)
Parent 2($)
Monthly Net Disposable Income:
923.00
1272.00
Monthly Net Disposable Income After Support:
692.00
1503.00
Monthly Gross Income:
1001.00
999.00
Monthly Federal Adjusted Gross Income:
1001.00
999.00
Federal Tax Filing Status
SINGLE
HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
Number of Federal Tax Exemptions
1
2
California Tax Filing Status
SAME AS FEDERAL
SAME AS FEDERAL
Number of California Tax Exemptions
1
2
Monthly Federal Taxable Income:
201.00
0.00
Monthly Federal Tax Liabilities:
10.00
-341.00
Monthly Federal Self-Employment Tax:
0.00
0.00
Monthly FICA:
57.00
56.00
Monthly State Tax Liabilities:
0.00
0.00
Monthly CASDI:
12.00
12.00
Other Monthly Deduction Totals
Type
Parent 1($)
Parent 2($)
Hardship Deduction Amount
0.00
0.00
Hardship Deduction Children
0.0
0.0
parent 1 now lives off of 692.00 per month or 8304 per year which is below poverty level. parent 1’s gross pay was 1001.00 or 12012.00 per year exempting him from benefits. where as
parent 2 now lives off of 1503.00 or 18036.00 per year but really only makes 999.00 a month or 11988.00 per year allowing her assistance of 24000.00 per year so now parent2 makes 1503+2000 or 3503.00 per month.
I ask you who needed more help the person trying to survive on 8 grand a year or the person making 18 grand a year.
continuing
parent1 can not have overnight visitation to his children because he can not afford an appartment.
http://www.rent.com/rentals/california/san-diego-and-vicinity/san-diego/
average rental 750.00 a month.
resulting in a 0 to 10 percent of the time visits.
parent1 has ~200 dollars for food, 200 for housing, and 200 for bills
does parent1 have insurance? No unfortunately he can’t afford it.
does parent1 have a car, unless it’s a junker or paid for no.
does parent1 drive much, no he can’t afford it.
does parent1 have enough money to eat, parent1 has about $2.30 a meal he can spend.
does parent1 have internet or phone, probably not.
does parent1 spend money on brand named clothes, highly unlikely.
does parent2 do these things, absolutely… she exceeds poverty standards by more than 20,000 per year.
Chris that’s to hard to follow the way it stretches down the page… ? How is the NCP paying 500 a month? Its impossible to figure out what you are doing. Even if the time with parent 1 is 0%, I get 213 for support, not 504 that you seem to be coming up with.
REGARDESS – Parent 1 is the NCP – who makes 1000 a month, for 12k year in San Diego? I counter that they were already living in poverty, and never lived on their own at that salary. They must have had roommates or living with family before they got married. If you start out poor you will divorce poorer.
This CP who was making about 1k/month as well, will be pretty dang poor getting her 213 in child support a month as well. she too will be POOR and will have the added burden of protecting a child while trying to find a place to live..etc. Yes she may qualify for assistance (but not unlikely to the level you have posted, I have no idea where you are getting that… )… but the assistance is to protect the child.
Amp #630,,,,really!! I was just abbreviating it from #616 for a short retort, and actually it is a theory. So I assume you’re the FTP Publisher of this splog? You may want to review the webmaster guide lines when it comes to links that may violate copyright infringements and or malicious links that may harm your patrons. I’d hate to see this splog removed from Google, MSN and Yahoo’s index’s. That would most likely end up causing zero results. Oh by the way I have a Masters in IT engineering with CCDA, CCIE, MCITP and MCAD certs, which kinda makes me a nerd also :-}
chris, there is no “Monthly Net Disposable Income” on that form. It asks for monthly GROSS income for each parent, along with deductions for child support paid from previous relationships, union dues, and so forth. It also has a “hardship” check-off, which I was forced to select given the example family’s low income.
By the way, given your Anonymous Economist mentioned earlier, this family could not have afforded to rent an apartment in San Diego BEFORE the divorce. Gross income of $24k per year is $2000 per month. One-third of that, which is what you insist ought to be the cost of housing, is $666.66 per month, well below your cost for an “average rental” for San Diego.
So Chris, it seems the basis of your argument is that NCP can’t qualify for assistance while a CP can when both earn about the same same living? But I will counter that with the fact that NCP can work two jobs, which a CP can’t. Although both have the option to get roommates or different living situations, a CP will have a more difficult time figuring this out. NCP have the option to move to areas that aren’t driven by a school district.
Life isn’t fair. Both people are struggling in different ways. Not everything equates to a dollar amount in a calculation.
Neither parent making a 1000/month is living a good life, and for the record the CP is not getting 2k/month in assistance, I still want to know where you got that number.
I have a friend who’s a single mother and only has a GED. She does have a job, but it’s low paying. Her assistance is less than $50/month in food stamps. That’s it. Oh and she lives in Section 8 housing.
Ken has a much better argument that when the NCP income goes down, i do think adjustments should be easier. (when the parent has been consistently paying and not changing jobs constantly to avoid paying, but that’s another story).
So Chris, it seems the basis of your argument is that NCP can’t qualify for assistance while a CP can when both earn about the same same living? But I will counter that with the fact that NCP can work two jobs, which a CP can’t. Although both have the option to get roommates or different living situations, a CP will have a more difficult time figuring this out. NCP have the option to move to areas that aren’t driven by a school district.
Life isn’t fair. Both people are struggling in different ways. Not everything equates to a dollar amount in a calculation.
Neither parent making a 1000/month is living a good life, and for the record the CP is not getting 2k/month in assistance, I still want to know where you got that number.
I have a friend who’s a single mother and only has a GED. She does have a job, but it’s low paying. Her assistance is less than $50/month in food stamps. That’s it. Oh and she lives in Section 8 housing.
Ken has a much better argument that when the NCP income goes down, i do think adjustments should be easier. (when the parent has been consistently paying and not changing jobs constantly to avoid paying, but that’s another story).
why not?, is there a law stating that this person can not.
here is the fact.
to tell an NCP that he is not allowed to make a living, under the same conditions as any american citizen is a violation of the constitution. to tell an NCP that he is not eligible for assistance while living in a situation that others would be assisted with is a violation of human rights.
You say that these people (NCP’s) have rights, where, show me the right for an NCP to obtain a life, liberty and the happiness that he is so entitled to while also telling him that he MUST work 2 to 3 times harder to obtain that, this makes him a 2nd class citizen. It makes him less equal, less deserving of life, liberty, and property. Do we not believe in the constitution any longer?
So, now that the math doesn’t work, chris has moved on to vague, sweeping declarations of principle?
The CP is already working two jobs….
I just want to drop in to say that not all NCPs are as addled as Chris. I’m an NCP myself. Do I like paying child support? No, but then, I don’t like paying any bills. As bills go, it’s at least going to, you know, support my child.
Am I being deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because I have to support the child I fathered? No. I’m being held accountable for my daughter’s care. That seems entirely fair to me.
first, the math did work, i have sucessfully proven that person a can make spendable income x and recieve benefits, and person b can make spendable income x the same as above and be refused. this makes person A more equal than person b.
moving on to the Bill Vs not bill thing, so we want to call child support an expense right?
ok then why not petition the US to make the reception of child support an income.
oh no wait, we can’t do that…
but we don’t want to help out people that actually need it either.
so what you want is an expence on party A that has no other party receiving an income. this doesn’t work, in order to have an expence another party must have an income, this is not the case and therefore child support can not be an expense. Moving on to bill, in order for party a to pay a bill another party must receive payment or income from that payment this is also not the case therefore CS is not a bill.
So here’s the truth, I am an NCP, i don’t have a problem paying my CS at all, however i did before, and wasn’t allowed assistance, refused help and was living on pretty close to nothing. People saw this and did nothing, absolutely nothing, i didn’t choose to be homeless, i didn’t choose to not be able to eat, but i did choose to pay my support for fear of jail. Debtors prisons have been abolished for 200 years but be too poor to pay your support and guess what, debtors prison it is. For any person to disagree with the fact that people may need assistance, and to outright refuse it based on a notion that the particular situation may line up with their ex NCP is nothing but spite and anger.
chris, no matter how many times it’s pointed out to you that your math is wrong or doesn’t prove what you want it to prove, you ignore that and pretend different numbers will get you where you want.
If what you really wanted to say was “when I was paying child support, it drove me into poverty and there was no safety net for that,” then why not simply say so? Most of us are squishy-hearted liberals here, we’re big on safety nets.
But lying about what the child-support calculator actually says, pretending that a child support means an NCP can’t afford an apartment that they couldn’t have afforded when married, and pulling facts out of your ass is not going persuade anyone of much. All you’re doing is persuading us that you are not credible, and that ‘facts’ are not all that important.
Chris:
If by “work”, Daulnay meant, “convince a person who didn’t already agree with Chris that Chris’ position is correct”, then no, it didn’t work. Or if it did, that person has not posted.
By marking what follows those words as truth, are you intending to contrast what follows with what you posted before?
Jenn:
Thank you for making this point. Yes, yes, yes.
Grace
Seriously? Your constiutitional rights are being infringed because you’re required to take care of your kids? They’re your kids. (This is a generic “you” not a “you” applying to any of the posters.) How about the kids’ right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That right doesn’t go away just because the NCP no longer feels like taking care of their kid.
The fact that people with higher obligations will have a lower standard of living working the same job isn’t some violation of their rights. It’s math. If the hubby and I have a kid now, our standard of living will go down. If we have six kids, our standard of living will go way down. If we have six kids and then divorce, it’ll plummet. But it wouldn’t be the kids’ fault, and they would still deserve the support of both their parents.
And when an NCP doesn’t get aid that a CP does, that’s probably because…they don’t have kids in their household. Aid is based on number of family members in the house.
Because they have kids to take care of. Granted, some single parents do work multiple jobs and scrape together child care the best they can, but having your kids living with you puts limits on your schedule and work availability that sending off a check to pay for part of their care does not. Not to mention that the cost of extra daycare or babysitting might completely negate the benefits of working a second job.
The NCP has the option to get another job, or to work overtime at a moment’s notice. The CP has to make sure their kids are supervised, which requires pre-planning and a somewhat steady schedule.
Although he is making the case about as poorly as it can possibly be made, there is an unfairness in the NCP-CP distribution of labor and outcomes WHEN THE CP IS DENYING THE NCP ACCESS TO PARENTING. Sometimes this denial is the correct thing to do – “No, crackhead other parent who keeps coming to the house high and reeking of bourbon and with the police chasing you, you may not have more custodial time” is a perfectly reasonable position to take.
But if the NCP wanted to have the kids 50% of the time and the CP denied that, and there was no compelling reason for it, then I do agree that the usual distribution of support is going to be unfair. I am going to be getting about 15% of the parenting time in my divorce, to begin with, the way things are shaping up. (I don’t want to go into “why” because it would take far too long and be distracting, as well as being my private bidness, but I’ll just say that the reasons for it are reasons most Alas’ers would not find compelling.) I will find the child support I am asked to pay on that basis to be unfair and an injustice, and I’ll be right.
I do suggest that Chris, and most NCPs who are unhappy with their payment obligations, make the offer to take the kids half the time and adjust the payments accordingly. I suspect that most NCPs would balk, saying they don’t have time. OK – then pay the person who does have time, for their critical role in raising your damn kid.
Robert, I think that is a very good point.
And I appreciate your final comments too, my ex did ask for 50% custody and no child support, I said no… Before anyone jumps the gun saying I’m with holding the kids, i am not, he has not seen the kids in over a year. He rarely calls. He doesn’t consistently remember their birthdays. I’m sure he’d struggle to tell anyone their ages/grades. I can count on two hands the number of times he’s seen the kids… and I’ve been divorced over 10 years.
50% custody, that’s absurd, and why I have pointed out in other posts, court does not enforce visitation/custody…. no way in heck would I agree 50% custody and no child support. That would be agreeing to no child support and no help.
Robert @657, I don’t think anyone is going to disagree that parents should not be unfair about the other parent’s relationship with their children, or in their responsibilities to their child. No, a CP should not insist on a larger percentage of custody out of spite; kids shouldn’t be weapons, period. But neither should a NCP ask for more time than they ever intend to spend with the child purely to reduce support obligations.
As long as we’re doing anecdotes, Jenn is hardly the only CP in that situation I know of. One friend of mine post-divorce had to regularly hassle her ex to get him to see the children during his scheduled visitation – he was always “too busy” (i.e., with the new girlfriend). Then one of their mutual social circle pulled her aside and said, P., it’s not good for the kids for you to keep them from their dad, why don’t you let X see them when he’s supposed to? Turned out X had been bitching and moaning to everyone else about how P. wouldn’t let him spend time with the kids, he missed them so, family court is so unfair, etc etc. (That stopped when she put up a very angry post explaining exactly what had been going on….but he was still erratic about visitation.)
I cannot conceive of the “too busy” rationale. I would crawl across a field of broken glass to spend an extra hour with my kid. What the hell is wrong with these people.
Worst. Fathers. Day. Ever.
Robert:
And how have your kids adapted to life in the Emergency Department, Robert?
Grace
Dammit, Amp beat me to the punch.
I just love how people put words into my mouth. For instance, I never once in my posts ever said anything about paying less in support, did I? I never claimed that support should be lowered, did I? I simply said that if a person who supposedly has an income and makes oh say 8 grand a year after a support obilgation, well maybe that person might need help. So far what i have gotten from oh about 90 percent of the people on here is, he’s an NCP who cares what he needs, as long as my needs are met he can rot. (put words in my mouth and i can do the same back) Apparently we (the people contributing to this blog) cannot agree that a person that can’t survive deserves help. Although this is not aimed at the (few) individuals that see the point i was attempting to make. It seems that herein lies a bunch of custodial parents that want to vent about the amount that their NCP counterpart pays or doesn’t pay, and when a person comes on here and has a legitimate claim with quite possible legitimate reasons for such, they are shunned and scorned and told that they have no clue. I find this hard to swallow, simply because you (the people on here claiming this is all fair, and good, and there are no problems) are on the other side of the fence, you are the CP’s collecting an income that isn’t really an income, collecting assistance and are relatively happy with the way the “system” has or is supposed to work for you. You may see this as fair, unfortunately though, you can not as a bunch of custodial parents determine what’s fair to a non-custodial parent, because the result would be undenyably biased.
quite honestly i risked my life for the slim chance of seeing my children again, however that doesn’t appear like it will happen. But I’m an NCP who cares about me. As long as my ex wife gets that check, right?
You guys are funny. But I won’t cross broken glass for you. Maybe slightly warm pavement, or spiky grass.
Robert – I hope there’s some kind of improvement in your family situation that works out to the benefit of both you and your kids.
“But if the NCP wanted to have the kids 50% of the time and the CP denied that, and there was no compelling reason for it, then I do agree that the usual distribution of support is going to be unfair. I am going to be getting about 15% of the parenting time in my divorce, to begin with, the way things are shaping up. (I don’t want to go into “why” because it would take far too long and be distracting, as well as being my private bidness, but I’ll just say that the reasons for it are reasons most Alas’ers would not find compelling.) I will find the child support I am asked to pay on that basis to be unfair and an injustice, and I’ll be right.
I do suggest that Chris, and most NCPs who are unhappy with their payment obligations, make the offer to take the kids half the time and adjust the payments accordingly. I suspect that most NCPs would balk, saying they don’t have time. OK – then pay the person who does have time, for their critical role in raising your damn kid.”
___________________________
That sounds absolutely fair. But you are just pointing out the unfairness of the system with that statement.
1. Most men, in reality, know that they are not going to get 50% custody with the commensurate child support (should be zero).
2. Lots of men who DID get 50% custody are still paying hefty child support.
As long as others are giving anecdotes:
Jim had 50% joint physical custoday. Each parent had a room in the house for the child, same school district, two weeks here – two weeks there. Jim pays substantial child support, but at least has no problems seeing his child.
Child becomes a mouthy teen. Mom and her new husband no longer want to deal with child. Child goes to live with Jim full time. Mom goes off traveling with new rich husband.
Jim could not initially get rid of his hefty child support payment. His own lawyer told him “the situation will probably change again, just leave the order in place”. After months of effort (while having a full-time job and 100% custody), he finally gets it eliminated.
Why was he paying hefty child support in the first place with 50% physical custody and when mom had far more resources than him anyway? I dunno. That’s the system.
I agree that Chris’ presentation was poor and unconvincing above, but I agree with his next-to-last statement above. Boiled down to its essence, the American child support system is unnecessarily draconian to men.
Although I’m sure there are multimillionaire men who aren’t going to make a piddly child support payment to the ex out of spite, and they build up tens of thousands of arrears, I don’t think that’s the usual situation.
Most men do try to make their payments. Some men do fall on hard times. Judges really do impute income (to men, not so much to non-custodial women). Some men simply can’t manage their lives well. There is empathy in society and the court system for kids and for mom; there seems to be none at all for dad. Just draconian penalties, jail and mounting arrears that he will never be able to pay off and that will make him a target for the rest of his life.
As feminism eliminated gender roles for women, it has seemingly caused an increase in a strict gender role for men in many ways. Real men buckle down and pay their child support – even if they have to pick up cans or rob a bank to make their former monthly payment when they had a better job. Real men serve jail time, get their licenses suspended (even if needed for work) and are subject to laws (Bradley Amendment 42 USC 666) NEVER permitting a reduction in arrears – for whatever reason – whether the guy is now crippled or whatever.
Why not have a little empathy if the guy just can’t manage his life? He’s a human being too.
VVV @669, going all the way back to the original post, median child support is $280 per month, average $350 per month. How is that “draconian”? “I don’t think that’s the usual situation”; well, one could just as well say “I don’t think chris’ situation is the usual”, and indeed the figures Amp linked to suggest that it isn’t. Handwaving about what the system “seemingly” does to “most” men is anecdata, and we could be here all day swapping horror stories (not necessarily split by gender, btw). Do you believe Amp’s statement is incorrect, or that these numbers are “draconian”?
I’m certainly willing to accept the premise that family-law courts are not the only institution in American untouched by sexism. (It would be astonishing if they weren’t.) I’m a little more skeptical of the premise that such sexism always runs in one direction and that direction is to the benefit of women and the detriment of men.
chris’ presentation wasn’t simply ‘poor and unconvincing’. It’s dishonest. I don’t mean that chris is lying about what happened to him; I mean that he presents figures and facts that are not true (for example, in “quoting” the California child support calculator, he claimed the form asked for information it in fact did not), and by his own admission, is now deliberately attributing arguments to people that they have never made (nor even implied). Nobody told chris that impoverished people don’t deserve a safety net if they are paying child support. That’s something he invented out of anger that he didn’t get “wow, you’re right!” to his unconvincing arguments.
As for empathy, as I said before, there’ s a surplus of bleeding-heart softies here, and I am amused at the notion that we don’t have empathy for the poor or empathy for people who have not managed their financial affairs and lives perfectly. (You’ll note that nobody is telling Robert to STFU and it’s his own fault, eh?) But I suspect most folks here also have empathy for CPs like Jenn, who is getting pretty much zero help from this draconian system you describe, and for children who are entitled to more than “well, mommy/daddy just isn’t good with managing a budget” from their parents.
btw, re your friend Jim, it sounds to me like he had a terrible lawyer. Assuming Jim is not one of those clients who just doesn’t listen (and I’m happy to assume that), it’s his lawyer’s job to explain to him exactly why he is paying the child support that he is paying. And “the situation will change again, leave the order in place”? WTF does that even mean? Did the lawyer mean that s/he expected Jim to send the mouthy teen back to Mom shortly so why bother, or that there was a hearing coming up anyway and Jim should just bring it up then? I hope so, because to me it sounds like “meh, I don’t know what I’m talking about.”
NCP men (who aren’t living up to their responsibilities) often say the courts favor the mother.
I don’t see that.
When I call the child support office, they say they’ve sent a letter and he has 30 days to reply. I call in 30 days, they’ve sent a second letter, 30 more days. After no response, they put his name in a db to see if he’s working. after 90 days they got a hit, but when they contacted the employer they found out he lost that job the week before. Currently they have another hit on a job, but the employer has 30 days to reply to their garnishment effort. You think this will pan out? Probably not.
I do think this will catch up to him. Eventually. But in the mean time does it seem like these rules of 30 days, waiting things out, favor me? nope.
Mythago writes: “going all the way back to the original post, median child support is $280 per month, average $350 per month. How is that “draconian”?”
——-
It’s not. I’m not claiming it is. I’m not arguing what you are going off on in your post.
But if a guy loses his job, has a judge who imputes income, and was always one paycheck away from financial distress – his life can spin out of control because the arrears will pile up (and they can never be forgiven – 42 USC 666 as implemented in your state). Not all men are good at managing finances or even their lives. What happens to them is draconian.
I’m saying: Why not have a little more empathy for men who are legitimately trying but who inadvertently move into the buzz saw.
VVV I agree with you.
If a NCP has consistently been their for their kid financially and/or emotionally, I do think there should be processes in place for those people who need adjustments/recalculations. Imputed income can be really tough in a down economy.
But what I don’t like is the NCP who aren’t their for their kids, have never been, are quick to join in that argument.
I do not think typical CS payments are miscalculated (as chris does). I do think more leeway needs to given to people who have been consistent for years, and hit rough times. I do think those are avoiding CS should always have swifter consequences… Those two may seem to contradict each other, but in my mind they are applied to two different audiences. Unfortunately one of those audiences tends to try to group the two together.
I didn’t see any real commentary on the case below. Given the equity powers of the court, it is hard to understand why this was nevertheless ordered and why courts can be this cruel to men.
If this guy loses his job, and still has to keep up the payments somehow while unemployed, is anyone really IN FAVOR of him being jailed and losing his licenses (that’s what will happen to him):
******************************************************
S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
A guy went to a party at a woman’s house. He drank too much and passed out. His brother put him into a bed. Several people testified in the court case that the guy had, in fact, passed out.
In the morning, he woke up with only his shirt on. Two months after the party, a woman who was at the party bragged that she had intended to go to a sperm bank to get pregnant, but he “saved her a trip”. She apparently had sex with him while he was passed out. A doctor testified at the hearing that it was possible, because erection and ejaculation are involuntary body functions. The man had no memory of it, and certainly didn’t intend to have sex.
The mother then gave birth and (on top of everything else) sued him for child support. She won.
The guy not only had to pay child support, he had to pay arrears of around $9000 (and he was apparently not a big earner), put her on his medical insurance and pay half of the bills that weren’t covered by insurance.
****************************************************
My point is that society has shown plenty of empathy towards custodial women by gradually increasing the penalties for non-payment of child support. It also shows plenty of empathy to non-custodial women – many chivalrous men don’t even seek child support from them, but judges orders also have a different texture and judges rarely impute income to women. Statistics on this are readily available in the Internet.
But the approach to men has become more and more draconian. My point is that men are also human beings.
Self-disclosure: I personally have no kids, pay no child support and have no real pony in this show.
VM @672: What you’re actually saying is, because people are not agreeing with chris, or because they don’t assume the family court system is draconian, they lack sufficient empathy for men who are in a financial mess re child support, or need to be reminded that “men are human beings”. Since nobody has disputed either, what is the point of your statements, other than to imply that anyone disagreeing with you has a heart three sizes too small and doesn’t think men are people?
You did see commentary on that case in the other thread. It tells us that 15 years ago, the law in Alabama was such that females couldn’t (legally) rape males and whether the child was conceived by rape was legally irrelevant. (This isn’t something the “equity powers of the court” can fix; they had to follow the the law, and IIRC the judges were pretty disgusted about the situation.)
You also don’t appear to have empathy for CPs – male or female – who have run into the “buzzsaw” of trying to get a NCP to support, or even see, their own children.
many chivalrous men don’t even seek child support from them, but judges orders also have a different texture and judges rarely impute income to women. Statistics on this are readily available in the Internet.
If they’re “readily available” then I’m sure you can quickly post them here for us, as Amp did in supporting his assertions, yes?
I, for one, am eager to see statistics showing men putting aside their own children’s financial interests out of misplaced “chivalry”. Certainly the men I know who are CPs don’t have any such confusion; they have the same stories I hear from women who are CPs about trying to get the bureaucracy to actually enforce a child-support order, particularly when the NCP moves around, changes jobs or hides or lies about income.
jen please validate your claim
with a direct blockquote link from one of my previous posts
thanks.
Again putting words into my mouth.
sorry chris, I don’t see the link, but let me restate. I did not intend to put any words in your mouth.
I do not think typical CS payments are miscalculated, not even for those who make less than 19K a year.
better? :)
Our payroll is biweekly. All employees with CS garnishments from a recent payroll…
Employee 1:
Gross: $2318.00
CS: $92.31
Take home: $1671.19
Employee 2:
Gross: $1074.75
CS: $175.57
Take home: $688.37
Employee 3:
Gross: $2246.25
CS: $276.92
Take home: $1629.89
Employee 4:
Gross: $1700.00
CS: $344.77
Take home: $663.86 (has other garnishments)
Employee 5:
Gross: $1563.90
CS: $109.83
Take home: $1072.68
Employee 6:
Gross: $1854.11
CS: $88.15
Take home: $1229.84
Employee 7:
Gross: $1253.13
CS: $152.31
Take home: $804.37
Um.
I have worked in conjunction with the court system and child protective services. If a custodial mother “can’t manage her life well” she can lose custody of her kids, temporarily or permanently, while being mandated into all kinds of activities that may actually interfere with her ability to “manage her life” (yes, I’ve seen moms under CPS scrutiny mandated into psychoeducation or therapy or meetings for their kid’s placement/day treatment program that actually undermine their ability to get or keep a job). Nobody is going around saying “aw, poor moms, they just can’t manage, let’s help them out” – TANF funds have been cut to the bone, daycare subsidies have been cut or eliminated, etc. etc.
In the meantime: visitation/percentage of custody was unhooked from child support payments at the behest of fathers’ rights activists, who did not want non-custodial fathers to be prevented from having their visitation time with their children even if they were behind on child support. The unintended consequence, apparently, is that “I’m taking the kids for more time than I was when this order was established” is no longer an argument that triggers a re-evaluation of the support order automatically, because time and money were legally unhooked in this way. This is how at least two lawyers in family law explained it to me when I worked with families in Colorado, and how the custody/support law was explained to me in California when I moved here as well.
I know of a few situations where kids are shared 50/50 with no (or almost no) child support is ordered. But those ex couples still share expenses, and generally they have issues.
If one signs the kid up for karate, who pays? Who decides what size photo package to buy? Who pays for the birthday party, the xmas presents? How does that work.
I have a friend who used to share custody, she worked at a non profit business that had an afterschool program that serviced the school her kids wemt too. He was convinced she was getting some deep discount, that she wasnt. Later he argued that he mainly had kids on the weekends and summer, hes sure he could find so,ething cheaper, he just stopped paying on his own. Talk about awkward at her work. Anyway they ended up back in court over after many other disputes, some financial, some practical. She actually proved in court the kids were immunized twice because the ex would not discuss any plans with her. He took them to his dr for an additional check up. The judge took away their 50/50 custody, critcized both of them, said they obviously can’t work together, my friend got custody and hefty child support. he still has visitation. He the judge stated 50/50 custody and shared costs was not in the best interest of the kids.
I often wonder how people who divorced are supposed to work together so closely on matters so sensitive.
Elusis @680: By “unhooked” I assume you mean that they’re not reciprocal obligations, which is true. It doesn’t mean that child support is independent of each parent’s time with the child. Rent is a reciprocal obligation; if you quit paying rent, you’re no longer entitled to live on the property, and if your landlord doesn’t allow you onto the property, then you don’t have to pay rent, broadly speaking. If you stop paying child support, you may be in trouble for that, but it doesn’t mean you lose the right to custody, and vice versa.
How? Because they can understand–if it’s explained right–that working together is WAY better than the alternative.
I’m a divorce mediator. I acknowledge this: Divorce sucks. Working things out with your ex can also, at times, really suck. Being nice can grate at you. Seeing someone else be happy can tear at you.
But it’s foolish to decline that unless you understand what we refer to as a “BATNA”, or Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.
Because troubling though it may be to have to agree on shit with your ex… well, changes are that the people involved and the kids involved are going to do a better job working it out, than is some random judge who has known the family for a grand total of a few hours.
Not to mention that the court works in very literal and straightforward ways (Money! Custody!) and isn’t so great at the more complex stuff.
Squid?? your numbers make no sense.. First the average for one child is 17%, for two 25%. Now let’s see what you have I assume these are based on a bi-weekly pay schedule.. I’m pretty sure that 1 – 3 have the same problems. So how is it that all of your coworkers are mostly under the recommended CS average?
Employee 4: CS at 17% of $40,800 should be $285.00 or at 25% $418.00 bi-weekly..
Gross: $1700.00
CS: $344.77
Take home: $663.86 (has other garnishments)
Employee 5: CS at 17% of annual $37,533 should be $266.00 bi-weekly
Gross: $1563.90
CS: $109.83
Take home: $1072.68
Employee 6: CS At 17% of annual $44,498 should be $316.60 bi-weekly
Gross: $1854.11
CS: $88.15
Take home: $1229.84
Employee 7: CS At 17% of annual $30,072 should be $212.50 bi-weekly
Gross: $1253.13
CS: $152.31
Take home: $804.37
“Squid?? your numbers make no sense.. First the average for one child is 17%, for two 25%. ”
——–
Frankly, I’m surprised that anyone even looked at those numbers in a more detailed way. LOL. I just assumed they were all going to be low from the get go and didn’t even read them. Advocates are advocates, not real fact-reporters.
I don’t remember if jake said where he lived. Some states do not do a %, they do a calc that involves both parents incomes.
VV:
I’ve known Jake for decades. I know for a fact that he has the job he describes, and I’ve never known him to be a dishonest person.
There’s certainly an element of motivated reasoning that all advocates — myself and yourself included — are subject to. But that’s different from blatant, conscious lying, which is what you seem to be accusing Jake of.
If you’re going to have a “anytime anyone presents a fact that disagrees with my beliefs, I’m assuming they’re a liar” approach to this discussion, you’ll be asked to depart.
Do what you got to do, Bunky.
Just don’t pretend like you’re as objective as you like to present. You’re not.
“Bunky?” It would be awesome if that were a Cerebus reference, but probably it’s not.
For the record, I don’t claim to be objective.
Do you really have no response to Jake’s numbers at all other than implying he’s a liar? I mean, you could point out — correctly — that the employees of a single company are not a representative sample of employees everywhere. Furthermore (as Jenn implied), even if Jake’s numbers are typical for his state, it might be that Jake’s state is not typical of the nation.
There are many more intelligent and respectful responses to his numbers than “you’re a liar,” that don’t require you to simply accept his numbers as true.
Anyhow, thanks very much for your contributions to “Alas.” I’m afraid we won’t be accepting any more comments from you, either under “VVV” or under the other handle you’ve used on Alas, but I hope things work out well for you in the future.
Mythago – I’m repeating what some family law folks told me when I was working closely with a lot of families where support/custody/visitation/etc. was at issue. So I’m gonna assume since you’re the lawyer, you know the word stuff better than me. :D
I should have noted that those 7 employees claim various numbers of dependents and that effects the amount of taxes withheld and some of them pay for health insurance coverage for children or families. These two things have a significant effect on take home pay.
But hey, if anybody wants to stop by my workplace, just drop me a note. I’ll be happy to show you the paystubs w/ names blanked out. I don’t pretend to know the formula Oregon (or Minnesota or Utah, these CS garnishments are from all 3 of those states, I believe) uses to calculate CS. I’m just reporting each CS garnishment that happens on each payroll that I process. I suppose I could also show you the actual orders w/ the names & case numbers blanked out, too. I’ve got those in the employee files.
Just because you can’t figure out the formula used to determine these actual CS garnishments doesn’t mean those aren’t the actual CS garnishments in each payroll I process.
I’m not really sorry that this small sample of CS garnishments doesn’t match your opinion of how much CS garnishments are. I am, however, astonished by your responses.
The least fair case I’ve seen is one employee, whose CS has ended, that claimed (and I have no reason to doubt him) that the child wasn’t actually his. Yet he paid CS for nearly 18 years.
Doing payroll and dealing with CS garnishments and National Medical Support Orders has certainly colored my opinion of the issue.
PS: Please be respectful and refer to me as “Jake” or “Jake Squid” or, if you must, “Mr. Squid”.
Mayhaps “Sir Squid” would help boost your ego! I agree with you 100%, when you said “Just because you can’t figure out the formulas used to determine the actual CS garnishments, doesn’t mean those aren’t the actual CS garnishments in each payroll I process.” I was simply stating that it’s very odd that none of the CS garnishments seem to adhere to any state policy. Especially when you consider it comes from three different states. And mentioning that you would release sensitive information regarding personnel records is a big no-no.
Also, while I understand that you, Newman, Amp ,Mythago and the Portland Mercury crew go way back to the wordpress and Daran’s blog days. Let’s not lose the real reason for this particular blog and drop the tag team retorts.
ken:
Jake Squid, prior:
Ken, are you saying that blacking the names out is insufficient to anonymize what Jake is offering to show, or did you miss the part where he said he would blank out the names? If the former, out of curiousity, what information on a paystub could be used to uniquely identify someone?
Grace
I’m honestly stumped as to how either of these things “… release(s) sensitive information regarding personnel records…” I strive to be fully compliant with all applicable laws, regulations and rules so it would be beneficial for me if you could point me to the laws, regulations or rules that I would be violating.
PS: “Sir Squid” can be acceptable depending on context.
I don’t see any issue with it, Jake, but privacy laws can be weird and confusing things. You’re private sector, right? It’s different for you guys than it is for government entities; when I worked at the state U, we were allowed to give any caller some information about students, like whether the person named WAS a student and whether they were enrolled that semester and how many credit hours they were enrolled for, but not other information, like what their grades were or if they had any disciplinary proceedings in play.
So, literally, stalker rapist stranger man could call up, breathing heavily, and ask whether Janet McProposedvictim was a student and whether she was full time, but Janet’s mom and dad couldn’t call and see if she had passed her classes. It was weird.
It works pretty much the same in the private sector. When folks call to check employment we can pretty much tell them that they work(ed) here from date x to date y. If we tell them anything else we’re open to being sued.
How that corresponds to actual paycheck from unnamed, unidentifiable employee X is something I’m not seeing. Am I not allowed to give the salary range for warehouse workers or drivers at my business? Actual paycheck for unidentifiable employee X seems to be in that category to me. I’ve never seen anything that indicates that that sort of thing is not permissible and, though I’m far from expert, I’ve delved moderately deeply into this sort of thing.
Until the jackbooted thugs from the State knock at my door, I’m going to assume that I’ve not broken any laws.
I am pretty sure you’re not in flagrant violation of any law. But then again, whether a person is a criminal or not depends on how badly the DA wants to prosecute them; everyone did something. ;)
I actually can see a privacy objection in theory now that I think about it. Say I know where you work. Say I know that my ex-spouse, who pays me child support, works for you. And say that I do not know my ex-spouse’s actual salary any more, because it’s no longer my business. (I can make it my business by going in to ask for a modification of support because I think she makes a bunch more money now, and then she has to disclose, but I don’t have a general right to know.)
Then you make your post. The one thing I do know is, how much the support check is. And there it is in your list…ex-spouse (the one paying exactly that much in support) makes $X per month. You just gave me (indirectly and unintentionally) information that I’m not entitled to possess. YOU BASTARD.
A stretch? A trivial violation? Yes to both – but weird things do happen. I think you would have been more in tune with the spirit of privacy if you’d said “I examined the payroll of the 13 people in our office who pay CS, and the percentages ranged from 11.2% to 39.3%.” No individual information is released that way.
Jake, what I’m trying to say, is there are patrons here that are looking for either advice or just to vent. Your comment inadvertently could have broken several privacy laws, or at best given someone fuel to say “see how child support can’t even keep an NCP’s private info secure!”
You should be sensitive to the Federal Privacy and Security Regulations and be aware of the specific laws and regulations, especially the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Believe me when I say, “that nothing on the web is private” it isn’t.
For example purposes only: if I were a disgruntled NCP/CP Federal Investigator title IT specialist GS-14 level 6. I could easily backtrack you through your IP address from your ISP, to the closet node, gateway and server. Even if you were trying to mask your IP, utilizing either transparent, Anonymous, distorting or high anonymity proxy server. File a Federal indictment under a sub of the Federal Privacy Act. Subpoena all incriminating evidence, well.. you get the idea!!
ken, the idea I’m getting is that you’re citing laws without really knowing whether they apply or how.
Ken,
Can you link me to a specific law or regulation that I have violated?
Sure, I “could have” broken any number of laws today. Which laws? “Oh, you know, the police can tell exactly where you live and who you are by following you back from the market,” doesn’t answer the question.
I ask because, as an HR professional, I’m familiar with laws protecting privacy but I’m not an expert. So, if somebody can point out a law I’ve broken by providing the data I provided earlier, it would be a great help both professionally and personally.
If, otoh, you’re just trying to intimidate me because the data I’ve provided – anectodal and small sample size as it may be – doesn’t support your position… Well, that’s just a shitty thing to do.