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.
mythago said much better what I’ve been trying to type out for the last 24 hours.
I sense some real anger coming through from Mythago for whatever reason.
It’d be nice if an ex-spouse helps out, but at some point you have to let the anger go if they don’t. I see it from a different point of view: Judges WILL impute income to men in computing child support, they just will NOT for the most part with women. My ex-wife was simply living off a new, richer guy and showed zero income – my lawyer made the good suggestion to not bother to pursue a nominal child support amount that she wouldn’t pay anyway. I don’t care about $50 per month.
What I’ve been learning in life is that anger mostly hurts you, not the object of your anger. All your chemicals are going off causing stress and damage to your body, and the other person is just going on his/her merry way, humming a catchy tune. Sometimes it’s unavoidable – at one point I thought I was going to have to pay her alimony while I had the kids and she had a guy paying for her – and probably would have blown a gasket myself if that had happened. But it didn’t.
TG, insisting the other person is angry (even when they’re not) is a derailing tactic. If that’s not what you intended, all I can say is that I really have no idea why you’re sensing anger that doesn’t exist. I do think it’s a little sad, though, to impute a bad parenting attitude to someone who is unhappy that they are pulling their ex’s share of the load regards.
i did not “read” mythago as mad, but then again someone might say the same thing about me. LOL.
I have been divorced 9+ years, and I’ve come to accept that my children’s father will likely never be involved. he will never willingly pay child support. I accept that and let go of either expectation.
That doesn’t mean I can’t be annoyed with the situation. LOL
What I see is that everyone is pointing their fingers at their spouses, where the real problem is the system. To follow up from #788, this sounds more like fiction than fact, no joke this is really what conspired during my conversation with a CSU rep. So I get a call from a representative at the CSU about my letter and posting of their bulletin board to a local paper.
CSU- says that the content on their bulletin board was privy information??
Me- the brochures displayed were produced by the SCU and copies were available at the door..
CSU- she ranted about the letter I sent to Albany and the Family court judge about how I was treated.
Me- like the way you are treating me now?
So she proceeds to tell me that my refund will not be sent until they feel everything is in order and the new adjustments have been in effect for awhile..
Me- you are breaking the judge’s order for the SCU to release my money.
CSU- quote, “the SCU is not obligated to follow the rules of any judge”.
Me- let me reiterate that by not refunding my over-arrears, your office is causing me undue financial hardship.
CSU- then you should take out a loan??
Me-REALLY!!
Me- what about the request to have the payments taken out according to my pay schedule, now listen to this one.
CSU- you will need to go back to court and have the judge change it??
Me- but do you realize that since you extract my payments on odd weeks, I go into arrears until the next week when I get paid?
CSU- yes!!
Me- So, I go into arrears every week, you pull from my credited balance, then overcharge me the following week.
CSU- we are doing our best to get this rectified..
Me- is this being reported on my credit as being in arrears?
CSU- I am not sure, it most cases it is.
Me- so I guess the “taking out a loan” idea is out of the question!!!
Me- And this acceptable practices for your office??
CSU- I have quotas to fill and the system is not going to change just for you!!!!
Me-So that’s what this is all about; I make you look good every week. You’re the hero getting that dead beat dad to pay his arrears. How many other accounts are you doing this to, so you can FILL YOUR QUOTA??? Check please…waiter?
CSU- sir this conversation is over, hangs up..
This is what we get when uneducated people who have positions, and their decisions can cause devastating results on people’s lives. BTW, she’s in for a rude awakening, I recorded the entire conversation and this time I will be sending an audio file to as many influential people as I can. We need to get this system fixed. Here’s an idea! Any cp that is not getting support is entitled to a 40% gross income tax exemption for 1 child, 55% for 2, 75% for 3 and 90% for more than 3. Plus 100% write off for all child care expenses, with tons of incentives. If we get rid of all state incurred charges like the CSU, family court and court appointed lawyers (no offense Mythago) and the money wasted tracking dead beat dads. The money saved would more than make up for the new idea!
Now you’re thinking, more NCP’s are not going to pay? There would be incentives for ncp’s too, like child support tax refunds, discounts at amusement parks, movies, theaters, museums etc. I call it The Childcare Reform Act: it’s voluntary; no courts involved and can be customized to accommodate both parties income. Also, if you don’t volunteer you don’t see the child.. There’s a lot of tweaking that would have to be added, but hey it’s an idea :-)..
max, when a parent regularly cancels visitation in order to spend time with the SO-of-the-week, or hops from job to job to stay ahead of paying child support, the biggest problem isn’t “the system”; it’s the misconduct of an irresponsible person.
WRT your conversation, please please check the laws in your state before you attempt to use a recording. In some states it’s highly illegal to record a phone call unless you inform the other person you are doing so, or have a court order.
I’m not offended by your proposal (that’s not the area of law I practice), but it’s unworkable. A tax write-off only helps people who earn enough to pay income tax, and who earn enough that the tax write-off actually makes up for the lost support. Making child support a reciprocal obligation with visitation/custody punishes NCPs who have the desire to pay but no ability to pay. It shifts the cost of deadbeat parents to the taxpayers, and I don’t agree that we can simply assume it would be cheaper than the current system.
Also, of course, it encourages divorce. Why should I stay married and pay all this myself when I could just divorce, stay living with my spouse and kids, and let Joe Taxpayer pick up the tab for childcare and other things? It’s not like the government is going to do house inspections to make sure I don’t see the kids.
sign me up, I’ll take a 55% tax write off… woo hoo!
I WISH there was some sort of recourse for people like me.
Mythago, you have valid points and now we iron them out..
I would disagree with the,” it’s the misconduct of an irresponsible person”, it’s more like the misconduct of an irresponsible system. NY has a one party consent law in regards to recording conversations. In most cases, the NCP that has the desire to pay would pay, if the payments adhered to a reasonable amount according to his/her pay scale. I know that most CSU directors make six figure salaries, add in all the other employees, building maintenance, court and process fees and we, as taxpayers end up paying any way you look at it. I personally would rather get more bang for my buck and invest in a better system.
Also, of course, it encourages divorce. Why should I stay married and pay all this myself when I could just divorce, stay living with my spouse and kids, and let Joe Taxpayer pick up the tab for childcare and other things? It’s not like the government is going to do house inspections to make sure I don’t see the kids. – Unfortunately any state ran support system has its flaws and abuse. If you are going to break the law, you will eventually get caught especially when it comes to tax evasion/abuse. The laws are only for the law abiding, all the research shows that being married, with all its ups and downs, is by far the most effective way of making young men law-abiding and giving them a sense of purpose and self-worth.
max, I don’t think an “irresponsible system” is forcing people to refrain from paying CS when they are able to, or to blow off visitation with their children, do you? And we’re right back to the original point of this thread – that there are certainly problems in the system, but the idea that typical child-support payments run fathers into the poorhouse is just plain false.
I would rather invest in a better system. A system is not “better” if it shifts the cost of childrearing to everybody but the non-custodian parent.
Re law-abiding: how, precisely, would I be breaking the law? Are you proposing that the law be changed so that it is actually illegal for the custodial parent to allow the NCP to spend extra time with his or her children?
I’d like to see a system where NCPs, who have not been found to pose a danger to the child, can reduce their child support payment any time they like by increasing the amount of time the child spends with them.
I’m not being driven into the poorhouse by my child support payment, but to some degree I’m being driven towards, if not into, the madhouse by having my time with my child restricted to about eight weeks a year. I arranged my professional life with the specific goal and intention of being able to spend most of my time with my family, and the CP has been able to simply take that away. I have to wonder how much child-support-based unhappiness on the part of NCPs is not financial at bottom, but familial. It’s about 99% for me.
Thus giving CPs — including those who are not evil but are genuinely broke — a strong incentive to limit contact between NCP and child as much as they can?
I don’t think it’s a good idea to connect contact between NCP and children, and child support, at all. Both should be encouraged, but they should not be linked.
They’re linked now. More overnights=less support. What I’m saying is, let NCPs take more of the parenting time (and thus more of the financial outlay) over the wishes of the CP…up to 50%.
At which point, CS generally drops to the minimum, and each parent is doing half the daily work.
“They’re linked now. More overnights=less support. ”
They are not linked in my state. C/S is a % based on the number of kids. period.
I can say I have a friend who lives in a state who has them linked. Therefore he pushed to have his kids as much as possible. Guess who takes them to school? his girlfriend. Who picks them up? His mother.
For the life of me, I do not understand why any parent, male or female, would try to come up with an excuse NOT to be held financially responsible for their kid(s). I am sorry Robert, are you seriously “bartering” to lessen your financial responsibility? It seems as if you are saying, ” If I can pay less in CS, I will spend more time with my kid(s).” I sure hope I am misunderstanding your point. Let’s face it, if CS was based on time spent with the kid(s), the CP should get 90%+ of the NCP’s income! Visitation and CS support should not be linked. My ex pays $0, but he can see his kids at any moment. Yes, the system is flawed, but the system wouldn’t exist if parents would live up to their DUTIES! I am sure it may be a financial struggle for the NCP to cope with CS, but imagine if you had to deal with that same struggle as a CP with no financial help from your kid(s) parent? Imagine have to work full-time, take your child to extra- curriculm activities, or better yet, explaining to your child that they can’t play EC activities because you can’t afford the registration fee! How about having to tell them that they can’t get the expensive cereal b/c it isn’t in the budget. Better yet, staying up w/ a child until 3 am b/c they are sick & having to go wrk that full-time job. The same full-time job that pays for a roof over your child’s head, clothes on their back, gas to put in the vehicle to get you as the CP back & forth to that full-time job, your sick child to the dr, pay for the co-pay @ said dr, meds that are prescribed by said dr, to the grocery store to buy food to put in your child’s belly, to the daycare that allows you as the CP to wrk the full-time job. The same job that pays for the lights that your child uses at home, the water bill thst your child uses to bathe, car insurance, home insurance, LIFE INSURANCE (b/c it is obvious that the NCP wants to have as little $$ responsibilty as possible), wash clothes, check homework, discipline, nurture, groom ( haircuts cost) not to mention the things kids WANT!! Oh, did I mention the time CP is spending w/ the child? Does this mean that the CS should increase? Loke I ssid before, when a NCP becomes the CP for 6mos (with exactly the same amount of support the CP is getting from the NCP) then they can question & complain. Otherwise, deal with your situation like so many CP’s do on a daily basis!
“Yes, the system is flawed, but the system wouldn’t exist if parents would live up to their DUTIES! ”
Well said. There would be no OCSE if it didn’t need to be enforced….
I personally would pay more for more time with my kid. I’m suggesting that NCPs who want more time should be able to get it, and that (at least in states that link – thanks for the info, Jenn) NCPs who think their financial burden is too high should have the option of sweat equity.
I still don’t understand why you want to “rent your kid”. If you want more time with your kid, go to family court and petition the court for more visitation. CS should not be linked to visitation. It doesn’t matter if you are willing to pay more money for more time or less money for less time. This is using the child as a pawn and is part of the reason the system is flawed. Some people want to manipulate the system for their personal advantage and not the welfare of the child.
I don’t want to “rent my kid”. I want to spend time with my kid. Whatever I have to do to accomplish that, I will do.
“Petition the court for more visitation”? The Court is the entity that *took her away in the first place*. I asked for 50-50; I got eight weeks.
Whether or not CS should be linked to visitation, it IS (in many places).
Like you said. You will do whatever it takes! So maybe it will take a lawyer and time to weed through the court process. There seems to be a big differemce between 50/50 & 8 weeks visitation. Maybe you should start there. Seek advice as to why the court only granted you such limited visitation. Once you get some amswers, maybe you can take steps to reverse the decision.
Thanks for the outstanding advice, Erica.
Robert, CS varies by where the child lives because that’s how expenses are split – but your right to see your children is independent of your right to see them. If you were so poor that the court could only assess you $50 per month, would it be fair to say that you therefore only get to see your kids ten minutes a week, which would be increased if you hit the lottery?
You are quite welcome Robert. I hope you are not being sarcastic, because what I spoke of is true. Like I stated before, I undetstand stand both sides of the system. My brother got a raw deal. When he got divorced, he asked for joint custody of his daughter, but was denied. I gave him the same advice I gave you. It was determined that he had some arrests in his youth, his long distance truck driving job, and his housing at the time that weighed heavy on the court’s decision. Because he would do anything for his daughter, he got a home with more space, got character statements, got his police record to show that he had been out of trouble with the law for over 15 yrs, got a dedicated truck driving route, and provided proof that he had a stable family support system for child care for his daughter if he was required to be out of town for work, and went back to court. He was granted joint custody! Did it cost him more money and time? Heck yes! But, he would do anything for his daughter. He struggled to pay his CS and lawyer, but it was a sacrafice he was willing to make. He could’ve sat, complaining about how the system screwed him, but what would that resolved? He still wouldn’t have custody of his child. And in the end, it wasn’t the system that was the blame for him not getting his original request…it was his past actions and current lifestyle. The point is, he never would have known had he not put in the work and sacrafice. And yes, this is the same brother who got his bank account cleaned out when his ex filed additional CS in another state.
Frankly, Robert is one more nasty manipulation event from his ex-wife and a painful tweak and then bursting enlightenment away from becoming … an MRA. A sudden realization that he’s also a human being.
I’ve already seen this transformation from caterpiller to butterfly before. LOL
erica, “work hard and you’ll get what you want, stop whining” is orthogonal to the question of whether the system’s unfair. You can work twice as hard to get what you should have had in the first place – and?
Acme, that’s not a very nice thing to say about Robert. I, too, have seen bitter people who decide [the opposite sex] is a bunch of evil [sons of] bitches because said people didn’t get their way in family court, but I believe him to be smarter than that.
Correct. I believe all human beings, including women, are each uniquely evil and stupid in their very own way. A one-off experience with one sample is unlikely to change my view of the other 7 billion.
And yes, Erica, I could (and will), at the cost of years of my daughters irreplaceable childhood and tens of thousands of dollars in expenses, eventually get to what I had status quo ante. Hooray. Poland got their territory back after WWII, most of it. Pity about every city being razed to the ground and the millions of dead. The correctability, however inadequate, of a problem does not erase the creation of the problem or exonerate the systems used to mediate problems of their flaws and errors.
I used to have it as a feeling and I now have it as a conviction: the presumption in cases of divorce needs to be joint custody. Abusive and neglectful parents can and should be removed from their children’s lives, but divorce should not be an automatic and difficult-to-override invoker of that process without due process. If I was bad for my daughter on June 2, 2011, then I was bad for her before and steps should have been taken; the fact that they were not ought to be a basis for an equitable, 50-50ish postmarital childrearing arrangement.
In the majority of cases are parents planning to live near other for the next 18 (or less )years? How can could you really do joint custody. True joint custody as you are saying?
Would there be an office of custody enforcement instead? Forcing parents who want to balk out on custody time to spend (quality) time with kids? Would parents be forced to discuss and agree on every purchase and split it? Or be forced to buy 50% of clothes? School supplies? 50% of birthday presents for friends?
Lots of people (not a majority, but far from a tiny sample) do joint custody now, so “joint custody would involve X, Y, Z complication” is not an interesting argument. Yes, it involves complexities; every single divorce with children involves complexities. We’ll be dealing with complexity regardless, and complexity can be dealt with, so let’s not waste cycles on the side issue.
I will address one of the things you mentioned because it goes to the larger issue – what about parents who want to balk out of their parenting time? OK, so balk – tell the court “I don’t want to be a 50% parent, give her/him more of the custody please”.
My point is not that divorcing parents who don’t want 50-50 ought to be prevented from realizing their preference; it is that 50-50 ought to be the starting point and base assumption from which exceptions and deviations are made.
“Acme, that’s not a very nice thing to say about Robert. I, too, have seen bitter people who decide [the opposite sex] is a bunch of evil [sons of] bitches because said people didn’t get their way in family court, but I believe him to be smarter than that.”
– Mythago
Well, zero points for originality in basically calling MRAs bitter woman-haters.
If Robert were to take steps to try to bring about real 50/50 custody of children as a default in a divorce and to make legislatures aware of the issue … he is a Men’s Rights Activist. The issue isn’t men becoming bitter at fair judgments in divorce court, it may well be men becoming aware of unfair judgments on a basis that is more general than specific cases.
Why not just discuss these things and sort them out – also with men who are starting to step up more and demand – human – treatment, instead of mud-slinging, name-calling and misrepresentation of the facts?
Acme, please climb off your high horse. If you don’t start writing more interesting things, you’ll be asked to depart.
***
Robert, the fact that joint custody has been done successfully by many couples in the status quo may not indicate that much, because presumably a high number of those couples self-selected themselves into joint custodyhood. (Am I wrong about that?)
There are legitimate problems with making joint custody work, which I think should be discussed, not hand-waved away. What if one parent has to move for work, for instance?
That said, just to make my own position clear, I do think that there should be a rebuttable presumption of joint custody. (Hey, does that make me an MRA?) I just don’t think it’ll necessarily be easy to accomplish.
Nor do I see any reason to think that we should presume that because custody is split 50/50, there should be no child support payments; if one parent has significantly greater means than the other, then they should pay child support, even if custody is split 50/50. (ETA: I’m not assuming that’s what you think, Robert; it’s just something I’ve sometimes heard people suggest.)
Ampersand haughtily commands: “Acme, please climb off your high horse. If you don’t start writing more interesting things, you’ll be asked to depart.”
You don’t have to ask me to depart – I thought I’d take a poke at you people and then depart myself.
OK, I’m off my high horse: Fuck off, you dishonest, manipulative lump of blubber.
Better?
Gosh, it’s as if you don’t like me. That’s such a great shame — I’m ever so fond of you.
““joint custody would involve X, Y, Z complication” is not an interesting argument. “
I could easily say the same thing about child support payment being too high. LOL (keep in mind I’m coming at this from the perspective that my ex has not seen the kids or paid ANY child support in years)
BUT I do want to point out in our divorce he argued for 50/50 custody. Some people will say they want 50/50 custody to have no (or low) child support… and then NOT FOLLOW THROUGH! Shocking.
In fact my ex has twice pushed for 50/50 custody…. in the hopes he won’t pay child support.
About 6 months ago (after not seeing the kids for 1.5 years) and not even talking to them for months, my ex asked me if I’d 50/50 custody without child support. I told him I would not consider that at this time. I reminded him he’s lived out of state for 9 years. (the kids are 11 and 9), he’s only seen them a handful of times in their lives and only a few day at a times. Is his intention to move into my school district and take the kids to and from school 50% of the time? I reminded him that’s 820am and 320pm. He then quickly called me GREEDY. Yes I’m the one worried about money…. (remember I haven’t gotten child support in a long time)
By aside from my anecdotal experience – which i will admit is exactly what the MRA groups hate to see.
I feel that it’s rare a DIVORCED couple are amicable enough to work through the shared custody and expense disputes that will occur with this situation.
I’m part of a large single parent network and here are the things I’ve seen with those situations:
Kids need afterschool care several days a week. Who pays for that? To ration it out so that the parent that picking up the kid on those days pay for ONLY those days. What about the fact that most afterschool care places don’t do part time (in my area at least). In addition if one parent tends to operate by on the fly (picking up kid when they were suppose to go to daycare – daycare will still charge for that day, the parent who picked up the kid will often refuse to pay saying they didn’t need it)
What about the father who wants his son to ride BMX bikes – and mom thinks it’s dangerous – do they split that cost for the bike and the races? what about the races in the series that fall on her custody weekend?
What about if the kid loses their winter jacket while visiting dad? Who pays to replace that?
Mom thinks buying a yearbook is important to the kids. Dad thinks it’s stupid.
Although I have seen joint custody work, it’s rare there aren’t disputes DIRECTLY in front of the kids eyes
IE, the most common example I’ve seen many many times: “please bring the clothes I bought home on friday”.
Man, you just don’t get decent trolls nowadays.
Family law sucks; there’s no two shakes about it. Mostly it’s a choice between “less shitty” and “more shitty;” unless you’re lucky there is rarely a choice which involves everyone being in a fairly good position.
Generally my own feeling is that the first priority is for everyone (including the kids) to get the basic standards of living: food, shelter, schooling, and so on. That includes housing–of the type which we provide through public assistance. It includes food, of course. It includes schooling–in a public school, and/or a public university. Frankly, BOTH sides should pretty much live at the same level, until BOTH sides are on their feet.
I find that things get a lot more complex when the court starts getting involved in distributing the stuff ABOVE a fairly basic level. Mary might not have been willing to pay for her daughter’s daily judo and dance lessons when she was still married: why should she have to fund them now that she’s divorced? John always argued that Exeter wasn’t worth the money; should he lose that argument because he ends his marriage? Amber had always planned to tell her kids to go to U.Mass instead of Tufts, to save money–the state had no say in that choice when she was married, so why does a judge think it necessary to enter a ruling on that now?
One huge underlying problem in divorce is that the court expands its role into parenting decisions, which a court is very poorly situated to do. That’s not the same as the basics: the question “should my kids have clothes and food?” isn’t a real decision, in that context. No reasonable parent could answer “no.”
But the question “should we live in a smaller less-nice apartment so I can work a bit less, spend more time at home and be a better parent when I’m there?” or “should I finance my kid’s education?” or “is it better to put my kids in daycare for 35 hours/week for a short period, so I can further my long term career goals?” are decisions that the courts do very badly.
A lot of the perception of unfairness stems from that discrepancy.
The court and the state don’t give a shit where my kids go to college. They don’t complain that I have two of them sharing a bedroom (it used to be all three) or that we eat a lot of pasta and our veggies aren’t organic. If we decide to lower our standard of living and send our kids to school in clothes from Goodwill and live in the basement of an ugly three family and not own a car, and make them work to save for college… that’s our right, yes?
In fact, we’d be fairly ordinary, imperfect,parents. We have the right to make decisions for our kids; it’s our job. And because we’re an important part of our kids’ lives, sometimes those decisions benefit us rather than them (at least in the short term:) we need to be sane, too.
The state has absolutely no incentive (or legal ability) to get involved, unless we fall within the sights of DSS.
But oddly enough, if we were to get divorced, all of those things could be considered evidence of bad parenting. The court might make me or my wife:
-Provide separate bedrooms;
-live in a nicer area
-send our kids to an expensive school
-not change my job
-provide “enrichment” activities for the kids
And so on.
This never made sense to me. If the state had no interest in it before and if the state has no provisions to make those things widely available and if the state has no laws which even suggest that those decisions are bad in any objective sense, why is the state involved at all?
I agree with you on this “Generally my own feeling is that the first priority is for everyone (including the kids) to get the basic standards of living: food, shelter, schooling, and so on. ”
and back to the Title of this entry “Men’s Rights Myth: Typical Child Support Payments Are Insanely High”
I do not think TYPICAL CHILD SUPPORT payments prevent most NCP ” basic standards of living: food, shelter, schooling, and so on. “
“why is the state involved at all?”
Because the legislatures, in their infinite wisdom/stupidity, made most of the things in the divorce hinge on “the best interest of the child”. So the court feels obliged to decide whether Mr. G&W with his trailer-park-basement public-college plan, or Mrs. G&W with her McMansion-private-bedroom-Harvard plan, are best for the child.
This ends up handing far more power to the party in the divorce with less economic productivity and/or sense, but I don’t think that’s intentional. Mr. G&W knows he is going to live in a trailer park and send them to state because that’s what his earnings will support; Mrs. G&W taps her mommy and daddy for $100k in loans to keep living high during the divorce; the court decides that Mr. G&W is a dreadful pennypinching ogre and that Mrs. G&W is a terrific, dedicated full-time mom.
Not that I’m bitter.
Probably not.
My own ‘equalization’ preferences would suggest that it makes no sense for CP and NCP to have any different standard of living until such time as they are both securely at the basic level. If it’s good enough for CP, it’s good enough for NCP, and vice versa.
As a practical matter, my thoughts are entirely unrealistic. After all, everyone (including me) tends to believe that whatever they want is a “need” and whatever an enemy wants is an “want.” It’s simpler to manage someone else’s life than it is your own.
But I do wish that the court system would spend more time attending to the actual needs of those in trouble, and less time attending to proper distribution of excess to folks who have tons to begin with.
This is the exact reason the system was created. There are a bunch of bitter divorce jerks who would rather punish their former spouse than take care of their kids. It isn’t about the spouses, about how much he/she earns. It is about taking care of your child. Anybody that is talking about tax credits, divorce proceedings, or educational levels, is NOT concerned about the child!!!
gin-and-whiskey:
Robert:
Au contraire!
The answer is simple, and it has nothing to do with what the mean ol’ legislature did or didn’t do. The state is involved because the parents (or one of the parents) got them involved.
If I serve my three kids spaghetti 4 nights a week and they all share a bedroom, that’s no problem … until I get divorced, and my wife goes to the court and argues that because I serve my kids spaghetti 4 nights a week and they all share a bedroom, therefore she ought to have custody, what with the ‘individual bedrooms’ and ‘nutritious food’ and all.
In my experience (IANAL, but I work in a family law law office. YMMV. IMHO. valid only in California, etc.), the courts don’t care all that much about what arrangements the parents come to, as long as they come to an agreement on their own. If they can’t come to an agreement for some reason or another, that’s when the state gets involved.
I kind of think of it like two kids who just can’t stop fighting with one another … they’re too angry or childish to just come to an agreement, and share their fucking toys. Well, that’s great, but when you go to dad, all he wants is for you to get out of his face, and probably neither of you will like his decision. Too bad. Figure it out yourself.
—Myca
I know that; it was rhetorical :)
that’s a bad standard, unfortunately. Mostly because it’s inconsistent. There’s no logical reason that the question of a child’s well-being should mandate state interference until it drop below whatever standard the state sets for ALL children.
If the state doesn’t supervise the child-management decisions of single parents or widowed parents or married parents, why should it automatically do so for divorced parents?
Sigh. I started another divorce mediation today; this is on my mind.
ETA:
True. And lord knows I’m not going to suggest that people shouldn’t be able to rely on the court system.
But then again, why should people have to agree? Plenty of people disagree, and the court doesn’t have to manage all disagreements. Assholery isn’t illegal; bad parenting isn’t illegal. That shouldn’t change just because of a divorce.
gin-and-whiskey , but what about all the data that can be twisted to say kids from single parent household are much more at risk for prison or whatever evils are in the world. (I am NOT saying I agree with that at all) Does that influence the “system” think they need to monitor the situation more?
Anybody that is talking about tax credits, divorce proceedings, or educational levels, is NOT concerned about the child!!!
Uh, yeah, OK. I guess on your planet you have some other adults who come in and manage the adult parts of life, like taxes, court, and economic decisions.
Here on Earth, however, parents have to deal with those things and they become relevant. Yes, someone who is bitching about their divorce proceedings’ unfairness while their child starves in a gutter, needs to shut up and get a job and get that kid some food and shelter. Nobody here is even close to that scenario; we’re at the scenario where grownups are dealing with grownup stuff.
The state is involved because the parents (or one of the parents) got them involved.
That is true, Myca, but the LEVEL of involvement is not predicated on whether we got them involved or not. The state could get involved, handle things the way G&W idealistically suggests, and then close for the day.
The state is involved because the parents got them involved?? I tried amicably to settle out of court, stating that I could relocate closer to home and help raise our daughter. But her lawyer stepped in and ruled that my pay would go down too far for the proper amount of support that they deserved!!
If I had spent all my time and money fighting the court system, my quality of time spent with my daughter would have been vastly different. And I whole hardly believe her quality of life would have been too. I got a raw deal when I was told I could not have 50/50 because of how far my job was from my home. So my visitations were set at every other week end and two Tuesdays a month. I refused to move out of the same town where my daughter lived, even if it meant commuting over six hours a day to/from work. I could not get a job closer to home, because of the difference in pay scales; I was already branded in the court systems of being capable of a six figure salary and was warned not to take a lower paying job. I gave up on the courts in trying to help me out, instead I concentrated on my daughter.
So I did a lot of sacrificing; I lived very modestly and drove cars that most people considered beaters. My commute cost me over $1,200.00 monthly. My coworkers thought I was nuts and always said it would cost less if I got an apartment in the city. Yes I could have lived much better if I had moved to the city, but at the cost of not seeing my daughter! I even passed up a Director’s position to avoid spending more time at work; (Glad my ex and the judge didn’t get wind of that!).
I didn’t care what the courts ordered; I spent as much time as I could with my daughter. As long as my ex was driving her new car, getting her house renovated and all extra curriculum activities paid for, she didn’t care. Now 13 years later, my daughter has since graduated with honors with an MS from an Ivy League School. I did all of this while being remarried for the past 12 years and raising two other daughters. The emotional and financial strain it placed on my family; I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.
Never once did I get support from the so called FAMIL COURT SYSTEM or CSU. Not once was I allowed to claim any portion of taxes for raising my daughter even though she was with us most of the time, because I was not the CP. We always made sure she had clean cloths; we paid for her first car and all her education. It may sound horrible, but my family and I will be celebrating the emancipation of my 23 year old daughter from child support shortly, by going on our first vacation in ten years. Between moving closer to my job and removing the extra child support, we will be receiving an additional $3,500.000 monthly; it’s like hitting the lotto…
When people come up to me and say, I did what I was supposed to do, I tell them NO!. I did a hell of a lot more than I was supposed to do, so that I could enjoy what I was entitled to. There are a lot of NCP’s that are assholes for not supporting their kids. But this system goes after the dads like me because I’m educated and I’m an easy target. If women have fought so hard for equal rights, why do they give them up in the family court system?
Max I would have been happy to have you as an ex, and would agreed with the job change from the get go.
I have met single mom’s who brand their ex has a horrible ex, when to me it sounds like they are doing everything right. I have a friend USED TO think her ex was awful. That was until she and I became friends. She realized there is a huge difference in her ex and mine. Her’s does see her kid, does pay for things. not exactly what she wants and doesn’t see the kid on the exact schedule she would like, but she’s stopped complaining.
Yep. Like I said, “the state is involved because the parents (or one of the parents) got them involved.”
In other words, your (ex-)wife got the state involved, because the out-of-court offer you made wasn’t acceptable to her.
Look, this isn’t rocket science. You wanted to settle out of court. She didn’t. Maybe she was being totally unreasonable. Maybe you were. If the two of you can’t agree, someone has to make a call.
—Myca
Uh, yeah, OK. I guess on your planet you have some other adults who come in and manage the adult parts of life, like taxes, court, and economic decisions.
Here on Earth, however, parents have to deal with those things and they become relevant. Yes, someone who is bitching about their divorce proceedings’ unfairness while their child starves in a gutter, needs to shut up and get a job and get that kid some food and shelter. Nobody here is even close to that scenario; we’re at the scenario where grownups are dealing with grownup stuff.
Well Robert, I guess as a Parent with full custody of my two kids, my focus is on their everyday living, which is more RELEVANT than tax credits. That is one of the differences between being a CP and a NCP. As far as your comment about “bitching about their divorce proceedings…”, well, let’s just say you need to look back at your postings. You seem to be very bitter and full of anger. Many people gave you suggestions and shared information with you to encourage a better outcome for your situation, but it is obvious that this is not what you are seeking. You want to rant, rave, and vent. So you can insult me by implying that I am not “of this planet”, but at the end of the day, this “alien” kisses her kids and tuck them into their beds every night. I just pray that when my divorce is final, that my ex looks in the mirror and sees the error of his way and not blame the system, me, the government, his lawyer, my lawyer, the kids, E.T., Santa Claus, the internet, or Big Bird for HIS own shortcomings! So if you will excuse me, my mothership is about to land and I need to get some rest so I can work in the morning to handle not only MY financial responsibilities, but MY responsibilities as a PARENT!!!
Everyone, please dial it down several notches. Thanks.
1) max, lawyers do not “rule”, they argue. Judges rule. What your ex’s lawyer said during settlement or mediation is not what the judge decides in court.
2) Where was your lawyer during all this? Did you have one, or ever seek legal advice? Did your friends ever tell you to petition to modify the order?
3) When you repeatedly ignore the experiences of others here to insist that your experience is typical and universal, you are expecting a courtesy you are not willing to extend others, which is both rude and makes your own position less credible. Also, when you keep insisting that women have it all their way (again, flatly ignoring what women like Jenn are saying) and then getting angry when that is pointed out, you do not sound like someone presenting his own experience, but as someone with an ax to grind about women as a group. Which, again, makes your arguments less credible.
Mythago – At first I doubted your verum De legisperitus, but not after your last comment. You applied a lawyer’s typical retort. You stroked me, advised me, then drove in the dagger :-). But it’s much better than Myca’s tweeny acronyms and foul language, with a hint of no clue approach..
Anyhow, I am very aware of how the judicial system works between lawyers and judges. My ex is a lawyer, which alone should tell you that I had no chance of winning. I did have very good representation, but NYS child support laws are very strict. Especially when it comes to requesting a relocation/reduction in your income, even if it’s for a good cause like helping to raise your child. The courts do not see it that way; they assume that I am just trying to pay less child support. Once the decision is made, you cannot reopen it unless two years have elapsed or there was a significant reduction in your salary. So what do you think my chances were to have the payments reduced after two years at my present salary? Bitter, of course I am, animosity against women, absolutely not..
I have taught my daughters that they are not only equal but far superior both analytically and creatively. And have raised them to respect others but never depend on anyone.. My oldest daughter has accomplished more in her 23 years than most people twice her age. All my girls are top in their academic classes, speak a second language, can shoot a pistol, rifle, bow, fix a flat, change the oil and know enough Krav-Maga to knock the confidence out of any boy dumb enough to confront them. I am so proud of my girls and my wife, so to have you assume that I have an ax to grind against women as a group is ridiculous. My comments are geared toward how the system needs to be fixed not toward women..
Jen says: Max I would have been happy to have you as an ex, and would agreed with the job change from the get go.
Hey , maybe we would not have been ex’s in the first place :-)
ha ha ha.
Well that’s kind of my opinion on the 50/50 custody/expenses thing. The ex-couples who can actually successfully communicate and do both well (expenses and custody), probably should have stayed married. Clearly they are somewhat compatible.
The problem is we hope that people who couldn’t agree on things while married will agree on things while divorced. lol , so OF COURSE there are lawyers involved.
Hiya, Max!
Do you actually disagree with something I said?
ETA*: I ask because the line you (mis)quoted with double question marks (I assume to indicate disbelief or disagreement) is obviously true.
—Myca
*That’s ‘edited to add’. It’s a tweeny acronym.
Mycro- I’m not sure what you said, but what you WROTE -ne montre pas I’intelligence..excuse my French.
Thanks for clarifying ‘ETA’, for a moment there I thought you belonged to a terrorist group, ‘bietan jarrai’, those tweeny acronym’s are confusing..
If no money was involved, the state would look the other way. The state sanctioned CSU makes millions off of support contributions. Plus the more each state/CSU shows quarterly in child support/attachments, the more federal funds family court and CSU receives. How many speeding tickets would be issued if they held no monetary fines? Why was my last couple of military tours in oil rich countries? From small town government and up, it all comes down to the good old dinero, not the well being of the family, soldier or typical citizen. The state steps in, not because us NCP and CP’s can’t divide our toys equally. They step in because there is money involved..
Max i only half agree. It’s not just they make money – they also prevent spending money.
They step in because non supported families with kids are much more often requesting state assistance. It’s in the states best interest to pursue the support. yes they make a little on it, but it’s better than spending on medicaid, foodstamps, school lunches..etc.
Do you believe that the state will involve itself in a divorce/custody proceeding if neither of the spouses/parents request their involvement?
I’m deliberately excluding cases involving CPS* here, of course. That’s a situation where the state might (rightly) involve itself on behalf of a child without either parent’s request or consent.
—Myca
*Child Protective Services. Tweeny acronym.
See, Myca? There you go again with the foul language no clue approach. Sheesh.
;)
What does “tweeny” mean?
I think it means ‘like a tween,’ the kids who are 10-12 years old. I think Max is unfamiliar with the acronyms YMMV, IMHO, and IANAL, and assumed that my use of them was text-speak.
I know, right? It’s so tweeny of me.
—Myca
YMCA- – YMMV ‘your method may vary’, IMHO ‘in my honest opinion’, IANAL ‘it’s obvious you’re not a lawyer’ oh that’s IOYNAL.. So they’re not for text speech! then check out this site The list of Chat Acronyms & Text Message Shorthand, http://www.netlingo.com/acronyms.php/
Nuff said..
I’m glad you figured out what those mean, Max. Kudos.
The more substantive question remains, though: Do you believe that the state will involve itself in a divorce/custody proceeding if neither of the spouses/parents request their involvement?
Money, contrary to your assertions, is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for state involvement. Rich people can come to a mutual agreement and never involve the state while poor people are as welcome to invite the state’s involvement as anyone else (though they may need to file a fee waiver in order to avoid filing fees and the like).
—Myca
Mm, I think you’re a little off, Myca. (Should have been refrigerated more often as a child.)
The state involves itself in every divorce; you can’t just reach an agreement and shake hands and walk away. You have to file, and wait for a certain amount of time (depending on circumstance/location), and have the court accept your agreement as to the division of property, etc. I don’t KNOW of any cases of the court saying “hey, this seems bogus, we want more info” in cases where the parties were in complete agreement and just wanted a rubberstamp – but there is no right-to-noninterference either.
Money may not be necessary or sufficient, but the courts seem to take a lot more interest in the arrangements between rich people. This might be a simple case of selection bias: the court can’t reasonably tell poor people to go out and spend $10k apiece on evaluators and psychologists, and without those evaluations and reports the court doesn’t have a whole lot to go on, so the court seems to be examining the cases of rich people more often.
I know a fair number of couples who were significantly lower in SES than my ex and I, or at least one member of the couple, and in every single case they seemed to put up with a whole hell of a lot less crap from the court than we had to put up with.
And now you do. My divorce was a case in which we were in complete agreement on division of assets. The judge needed assurances from my ex’s lawyer that it was, in fact, equitable to my ex. It wasn’t much more info, but it was a bit more than just a rubber stamp.
Sure, Robert, since marriage is a legal institution, ending a marriage must involve a certain amount state recognition … you have to file for dissolution, wait a certain amount of time, etc.
My understanding, though, is that there is an issue of jurisdiction when it comes to state involvement. Someone has to raise the issue before the court can address it. There is a right to to noninterference, in a way.
If you and I are getting divorced for example, and I file the petition for dissolution, and in it I do not request spousal support … and you file your response and do not request spousal support … and at no point do either of us file a motion for spousal support … then legally, the court can’t order spousal support out of the whole cloth. This is the same reason that if a response isn’t filed, and a default judgment is taken, the court is limited to ruling on those issues raised in the petition.
Now, my understanding is limited to California law, and it’s always possible that I may be incorrect, but I’ll check with some of the attorneys here.
—Myca
“then legally, the court can’t order spousal support out of the whole cloth.”
—–
Sure it can. It can also declare a prenuptial agreement, or post-nuptial agreement for that matter, invalid if it thinks the terms are invalid. Courts award child support every day to women who don’t request it, because there are state guidelines.
In general, if a court thinks that terms are unfair, it can order what it wants.
Having talked to several attorneys at my firm, here’s the deal.
The court can’t either:
1) Rule on issues that it has no jurisdiction on.
or
2) Ignore legitimate issues, whether or not they’ve been raised.
So, for example, in a case where there are minor children and neither parent has requested Child Support (and nobody is seeking state assistance), the court can’t impose child support or ignore the issue … so what you end up with is the judge saying, “Okay, you know that if we go forward with this, there will be no child support, right?” And once both parties indicate their agreement and understanding, marking child support ‘reserved’ and moving on.
The thing to keep in mind is that even beyond issues of jurisdiction, generally the courts are just too damn busy to deal with stuff that nobody is asking them to deal with. They’ve got jobs to do. There’s no reason to get all extracurricular about it.
—Myca
Myca, I have heard a parent can not “waive” their childs right to child support. That it’s not theirs to waive.
I do not live in FL, but here’s similar language that I have heard in my state: http://www.samassini.com/family-law-faq/primary-parent-waive-child-support.php#top
My understanding is that a settlement agreement signing away your child’s right to support is unenforceable … but what that generally means is that it can be revisited at a later date, not that a parent is required to receive support.
This is why it’s such a foolish move to agree to give your spouse major concessions in return for no support payments. That spouse can always take those concessions and file later for child support.
Of course, spousal support is different, since that’s something one of the spouses may be entitled to, rather than the child.
—Myca
Once again, IANAL, and this is not legal advice.
I am not a lawyer either, but if you can truly sign away your right to child support I’m a liar! lol (not intentional)
I have been advised many times that that’s not in my rights.
In addition I have a friend who did not pursue child support, ended up on medicaid and food stamps and the state sued the baby-daddy for $ – the case was based on the fact that it was not within her authority to not pursue child support. IF she had gotten c/s she would not need medicaid/foodstamps.
Yes, you’re absolutely correct. That’s why I said in my previous comment:
Once you’re requesting state assistance, now the state is involved. Their attitude is along the lines of “Hey, we don’t care who takes care of this kid … dad can, mom can, grandparents can … whatever. It’s all good. It’s all good, that is, up until you ask US to take care of the kid. At that point, we’re damn well going to find the people whose job it is, and make them pony up some cash.”
As far as the state is concerned, relying on state assistance ought to be the last recourse, once all the other avenues of support have been exhausted.
If you’re not seeking state assistance, though, the state doesn’t care if you don’t seek support.
—Myca
I think all of this varies widely by state. For example, in Colorado, the Court is obliged to consider granting marital support in any marriage where the combined income of the parties exceeds $75,000/year. One or both parties can certainly say that they don’t want (or want to pay) support but it is up to the court, not up to the parties, in the final analysis.
So at least here, you can’t shake hands and walk away. The court is involved, sometimes to a very intimate degree. And the degree of that involvement is (specifically here, but I am willing to be elsewhere too) rather heavily conditioned on the SES of the divorcing couple. Poor people can say “there’s not going to be marital support”, rich(er) people can’t. Your view of the court’s disinterestedness and only being pulled in when one or both parties wish it is basically wrong.
But that per-state variation is pretty huge. I am still doing research but it turns out my ex may have shot herself in the foot by moving to California; if I follow and petition for a change of venue, it’ll be granted, and the rules in California are very different than the rules here.
Sure. There’s a giant “valid only in California” sticker on everything I’m saying here.
—Myca
I will admit to being surprised that solidly-purple Colorado is more government-interference-friendly than a state as blue as California, though. Must be all the evangelicals.
—Myca
A lot of our jurisprudence is fairly twisted because of the Spahmer case. A huge tool for compelled cooperation is out of the hands of the judges, and as a result they seem to tend to decide one-party-is-right and one-party-is-wrong. Which ends up with the government being very involved.
We don’t have all that many evangelicals in the big picture. Colorado Springs is fairly evangelical, and also about a fourth the size of Denver. You’d find more evangelicals per capita in just about any southern state.
Myca said – The thing to keep in mind is that even beyond issues of jurisdiction, generally the courts are just too damn busy to deal with stuff that nobody is asking them to deal with. They’ve got jobs to do. There’s no reason to get all extracurricular about it.
It’s called family court and that is all they deal with.
I do have to agree with you regarding how the courts really don’t care..
I requested from the courts about how my support money was being spent.
The court replied with, ‘ we are not responsible for how the CP spends the money, we are just here to enforce the order’.
Yeah, that’s pretty awful how the court won’t monitor your ex-wife’s budget for you, Max. What jerks.
—Myca
http://voices.yahoo.com/how-women-spend-their-child-support-money-4160981.html
snip
Jenn, excellent point. Thank you for making it.
Less common-sensically and more pedantically, max, courts do not look into budgets, not because they are sure everyone in the world spends their support payments with optimum wisdom, but because there is no practical way to track the expenditures. Money is fungible.
BTW, max, courts do NOT always only do family law. Again, state by state variation is huge. In Colorado, divorce judges are also criminal judges. My judge goes back and forth by day; Monday is a divorce hearing, Tuesday is setting bond for murderers and pimps. I wasn’t able to get her attention without being physically present in court on major issues like the right to proper representation, or the validity of financial filings in the case; the idea that she has time to proactively read over the ex’s bank statements to make sure my support money isn’t going to midnight showings of “Magic Mike” is just silly.
And when an ancient Egyptian curse causes the Judge to mix up which day is which, wackiness ensues!
The old wives tale is one person holds the judge by the arms, the other by the legs. You flip them three times, and they will have their days straight again. :)
From Jenn’s link, the paragraph just before the one Jenn selected to post:
Are those supposed to be rhetorical, obvious, questions? They’re not, at all.
Imagine that the NCP is functionally raising a child on $X/week of support, and then the NCP gets a raise and starts paying an extra $50/week. Often that $50 just gets wrapped into the household. The NCP might not complain if it went into a college fund or ballet lessons–but the NCP will view it as unfair if the CP starts getting a weekly massage and keeps the child’s life the same.
Child support often ends up used as “extra alimony.” It’s not only NCPs who like to benefit themselves at the expense of the kids; NCPs do it as well. Everyone involved should be equally scrutinized about their spending habits. If it’s for the “best interests of the kids” then it should go to the kids.
And you are proposing the NCP should use if for extra cigars?
Don’t you think the CP getting a massage will make them a better parent?
I’m being silly. BUt I’m pointing out how these things could be argued to death. (and have had that outcome in some cases)
G&W –
Scrutinizing spending is extremely difficult. The attempt itself would be destructive to good order.
1) Money is fungible. You cannot tell whether the $50/week for the massages came from the NCP, from the CP’s tips from her job at the strip club, or from leprechaun gold the CP finds in her bathroom every fortnight.
2) Expenses are wildly variable, and the nature of the expenses are not readily penetrated by someone who wasn’t there at the time, and the actual outcomes from the expenses are completely impenetrable.
I give my kid $15/week worth of organic Fuji apples; this week she declares that she doesn’t like apples anymore and wants bananas from now on. OK; nice thing about bananas, there’s no point in buying organic (mostly) and they’re cheap. So now it’s $10/week worth of conventional bananas.
Have I cut her quality of life by $5/week? Have I improved it because it turns out she NEVER liked apples, that was all a misunderstanding, and those pricey Fujis were all getting used for Apple Bowling at lunch but never eaten, and now she is actually eating the fruit? Does it turn out that she dies at age 17 of Inadequate Apple Consumption disease and it’s all my fault?
I don’t know. You don’t know. The judge sure as shit isn’t going to know.
3) The person managing a household of necessity has tremendous discretion as to the purchases the household makes. Suddenly those purchases are going to be scrutinized by a court. Well, guess what – now I am not making the apples vs. bananas choice on the basis of what’s best for my kid; now I’m making it on the basis of my opinion as to what’s most likely to please the judge. I’m sure Erica can chime in about how this makes me an unfit parent for not just ignoring every single consideration other than the child’s well-being, but as every parent knows, you have to juggle a thousand things. Maybe the scrutiny will prevent Bad Actor Bob from diverting $10/week from the fruit fund to the Crack Whore Excursion budget – but it’s equally guaranteed that it’s going to prevent Good Actor Bob from making a hundred other rational decisions that he or she (Good Actor Bob is resolutely ungendered) *cannot afford to have a judge look askance at*.
I think Jenn has the right of it. If you’re paying $2300 a month in support and yet the kids are living in a tin shack and showing up for parenting time in rags with rickets and complain that the lights in your house are too bright, “at home we just use the glow from mommy’s discarded syringes” – OK, by all means, get the system back involved. That means calling child services and going back to family court to say “judge, my ex is buying crack whore excursions and the kids are starving, please help me get them out of there, please don’t make me send her $3000 in cash this month, look, I have polaroids of her buying crack and whores”.
But there’s just no way for the courts to exercise meaningful oversight over this kind of thing. At the gross level of starving kids and documentary proof of crack whores, yes. Manicures and massages and premium cable packages? No way. It would take a huge new bureaucracy to do an awful, liberty- and volition-destroying job of it, and the main effect would be parents making stupid but palatable spending choices. (“The kids really WANT HBO so they can watch those silly Pixar movies on demand, but that will look terrible, so I guess it’s another $200 of uneaten Fuji apples this month.”)
And when an ancient Egyptian curse causes the Judge to mix up which day is which, wackiness ensues!
God bless you for cracking me up and completely making my day.
“Your honor, my client…”
“SILENCE, FOOL, AND HEAR THE WISDOM OF AHMET-RAH, KEEPER OF THE BOOK OF SACRED MATRIMONY! Your client will pay fifty petahs in gold in recompense to the virgin who he has despoiled!”
“But my client is MRS. Johnson and…”
“SILENCE!”
And one must remember courts have seen real abuse. Parents losing custody for very bad things.
In the eyes of a judge too,any manicures, or a lack of organic fruit is not an issue.
Sure, I have some sympathy for this … but just a minute ago, weren’t folks complaining about too much government interference?
I think the problem here comes down to balancing government interference with enforced fairness. You can’t have the latter without the former, and so many people deeply resent the government interfering in their business, but want the government to enforce perfect fairness by interfering in their ex’s business.
—Myca
PS. Also everything Robert said.
PPS. Everything he said in comment 884, I mean. I can’t endorse everything Robert said ever.
PPPs. Probably I can’t even endorse everything else Robert said today.
The stuff about the Jews controlling the media, you probably want to just disown outright.
We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical.
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do. We do.
I don’t think it’s PRACTICAL. And it shouldn’t be written into law.
But that paragraph wasn’t talking about court, but opinions of NCPs–and in that context my response is perfectly valid.
Lots of situations are not covered at all in the child support minefield, and I notice a creeping tendency towards taking agency and responsibility away from women but giving them “rights” / money enforced by Big Pappa State.
If I asked you if the state could force a person to become a parent – even if she is not ready to do so – against her wishes, you would probably (if you are pro-choice) say “no”. I suspect everyone here would resoundingly vote “no”.
If I asked you if the state could force a person to become a parent – even if he is not ready to do so – against his wishes, everyone here (as expressed above) would resoundingly say “yes”. Damn boy better grow up and become a man.
And then there is the real split between female custodial parents and male custodial parents. Women seem to be helpless people who can’t simultaneously have a job and have a (teenage) kid. With men, that bitter loser better quit looking to his ex for support and grow up and get a better job. A real job, a man’s job, that can support a family.
I know that the point of view expressed above will be disputed theoretically, but for the pragmatic people here (if there are any) in real life, look around you. Look around you.
G&W – fair enough. Sorry I misinterpreted.
Coyote – Not going to get into the C4M argument again (dear Jesus we are already at almost 900 comments on this thread), but will note that child support rarely has to do with unborn children and is almost always to do with children who are already born and to whom both parents already have an implicit or explicit obligation.
I’ll soften the blow of that dismissal by agreeing that there does seem to be a double gender standard, at least in practice, at least in some places, about what parents are expected by the court to do. But there are horror stories from the opposite perspective, too; I think it’s hard to accumulate honest data. (MY story is of course totally true and I present pure facts in a matrix of glittering objectivity, but everyone else is so full of crap it’s hard to know what’s really the case.)
Thread merger: Now that the List of Privileges List thread has revived, perhaps we should add a Non-Divorced Privilege. For example, are you privileged enough to see the acronym NCP and read it as NPC?
I am, and it impedes my ability to follow the discussion. But only a little. The terms have a regrettable metaphorical similarity.
Once upon a time, I suspect Robert shared this privilege. No more. Gone are the days, my friend….
I had to google NPC.
I think often people forget that those of us who are divorced WERE once married.
I once told people smugly “we agreed not to get divorced” or “we don’t believe in divorce”.
Here family court judges are an elected position and only practice family law. I had to produce a document showing all my assets, W2’s, and any other income, what I spent my money on in the past fiscal, including vacations and more. I also had to keep the CSU updated with any changes to my address, phone numbers, and income, I had to account for every penny that I earned.
So to ask the courts to make sure that MY CHILD SUPPORT MONEY was going toward my daughters best interests was out of line? Do you really think I was asking too much? And what the hell does that got to do with balancing anyones budget! It’s real easy to jump on the NCP bashing wagon, because everyone knows all NCP’s are nothing but dead beat dads, RIGHT?? How dare they ask how their csu money is being spent, how dare they inquire how their child is doing, how dare they upset the perfect balance of the CSU system…. People you need to take a step back and grasp what’s really going on, as opposed to the inaccurate, band wagon retorts.. This ship seems to be listing toward one side, putting on my life jacket!! :-/
And I go “wait, what are you talking about, WE decided? MY best interests? How do you know what MY best interest is? How can you say what MY best interest is?
I don’t understand how you could know how the child support money was being spent, as opposed to how your ex was spending her own income. It all goes into the same pot. Were there things your daughter needed that your ex wasn’t buying?
Jake- Do you have kids? Do you understand that it is my duty as a father to know what the best interest for my daughter is. In fact my daughter recently graduated egregia cum laude with an MS from Harvard. So I think WE did a damn good job.. And when I say WE, I mean my wife and I, because my daughter spent more time at my house with her step mother and half sisters then at her CP/mothers house.
Kelly- Yes, but I’m not here to bash my ex. but to answer your other question, the CS is not the CP’s income, it belongs to the child.. A lot of CP’s think that this money is for them, but it’s not. A simple thing called escrow and accountability is all it takes, why not there’s nothing to hide correct?
For all the NCP’s who want “accountability” for where your percentage of CS is going, please explain this. When I cook dinner and I fix my child’s plate, how much does that cost? When child places toothpaste on his toothbrush, how much does that cost? My my son flips the light switch in his room, how much should I charge? How much does it cost to flush the toilet? That is just dumb. And only a NCP would come up with such a foolish idea. Or better yet, when the NCP DOESN’T make their CS payment and the kid flips the switch in his room, how much should I charge the NCP? If you all would put as much focus on your children than dollars and scents, maybe you would be the CP instead of the NCP. Really, think about that. If you have your kids so much of the time, why not petition the court for custody? Why didn’t the judge grant custody to begin with. It is obvious to me by some of these comments that the CP is just a money hungry woman scourned, using the kids as pawns to make the NCP’s life miserable. Yeah right? If you can take care of one family you can take care of your kid who is not under your roof. If you want to know how I am spending the money to raise my child, you better be living under the same roof as myself and my kids. Otherwise, I demand to know how the NCP is NOT spending their money on their child!!!