So, I was listening to the radio tonight, and a topic came on about a man paying what people have called an excessive amount of child support. I think it was like $2000 a month per child. Well, people were calling into the radio station and just laying into to this woman, you know calling her a gold digger and all. But if when the children were living with daddy and mommy together they had the luxuries that daddy's money could buy, then why now does the child have to suffer, in a sense, now that mommy and daddy can't get along? Especially, if they were good luxuries like private school or nannies. Futhermore, should their life be interrupted when they have had mommy home all of the time raising them, because now mommy has to work just to make ends meet? I don't know I just feel for the children. If men's intentions started out trying to give the best to their child, why is it after he is not with the mom that changes and he only wants to give his 20 to 30%, and complain about that?

NowWhat

$2000 does sound like a lot per child. Especially, when the average Joe probably pays half that for all of his kids.
BUT - what is this guy earning? Most judges award child support based on the earnings of the parents. If this guy is making a truck load of money - then he should pay more for child support.
And you are right - while married to the mother - he provided a lifestyle for his family. That responsibilty should not change.
His responsibilty for her has changed - but not for his kids.

And what if $2000 each IS 20 or 30%?

fjsmith81

I think that he is paying more than the 20 to 30% mark.

I don't know and the reason that it is such a touchy subject with me is because I am a single mother, and my child's father decided to do the right thing. We didn't go through the courts and he pays much more than the courts would have granted. I just don't think that the mother should be attacked. I think that they got attacked enough those nine months and however many hours of labor.

JBeaucaire

Giving birth is an attack?

ScottGem

Every support situation is different and has to be looked on individually. I do agree with you that, if the children had become accustomed to a certain life style because of the father's income, they should not have to suffer.

froggy7

Devil's advocate here: it's touchy. No, the children's lifestyle shouldn't change. But, if we truly think that, why doesn't dad get to be primary custodial parent in these situations, and have mom pay a token amount of support? Part of the problem that I see with the situation is that there is more to living a certain lifestyle than just the money... it's location, contacts, etc. If you give mom 2000 per month per child, there is nothing that stops her from moving to Podunk where the average cost of living is 36K per year and just living off the kids.

Fr_Chuck

I guess it can often be a two way street, I have a seven year old, and his mother left, and to be honest not for any real fault on my part, but that is for another thread. So to me I would want him living with me, and having the benifit of what I can afford for him. It is not my fault or his fault his mother decided to leave. So while I would love to provide for him properly, I also as others do see why is it the courts normally give the mother the main custody, she wanted out, so why does that mean I am now deprived of my son for the larger portion of the time. So as one while I am glad to suppport him, I would prefer to support him by providing for him in my own home. not having to pay because of the whims of his mother.

califdadof3

Right now because this is an " opinion " type question then I have to disagree with Scotts answer. My reason being that life itself can bring sufferage at any time and its surviving that that creates diversity. Having said that what would happen ( ripped from todays headlines ) if dad or mom lose thier job through no fault of thier own like plant closing etc. Who is suppose to step in and make the extra payments that are going to be missed. Might they have to give up thier boat or extra car so they can survive ? When divorce occurs what in fact you are doing is creating 2 seperate families. To expect lifestyles not to change just isnt any where near fact. Already 1/2 the income has disappeared. If there is visitation then 2 homes need to be maintained ( not just one for the custodial parent ). So best is to maintain what you can but never to expect things to just go on like they used to. Is it unfair to the children - yes. Is it a horrible fact of life in todays times and a reflection of us as a whole - yes. Im not saying that no suppert by the NCP should be paid but Im saying to keep it real. In order for both parents to participate in a childs life they both have to have a life in the first place. If you forbid a NCP from having a life by placing unfair expectations of support on them then animosity, anger and frustration settle in and guess who is right in the middle - yeah the kids. Im off my soap box for now

this8384

Since we're on the topic, I have a few things I'd like to vent about on the whole child support issue.

1) The cost of raising a child doesn't increase just because an individual's hourly pay rate does. If my step-kids have food in their mouths, clothing on their backs and a roof over their heads, why is their mother allowed to go back to court and request an increase in support everytime my husband gets a raise? We can't plan for the future financially because we don't know if/when she's going to start asking for more money and possibly be given it by the court.

2) The support system in this state is a joke. His ex-wife, under state law, receives 25% of his gross income for the 2 kids they have together. Let's hypothetically say my husband and I split up and I filed for child support. Under state law, I would be entitled to 17% of his gross income; however, I get 17% after the ex wife's 25% has already been deducted. So where's the fairness to my child? Why should she be denied that extra $100 every month?

lucytwo2

Just an opinion but child support is 17% for 1 child and 25% for 2 children.I've been on both sides of the street.When my ex and I split as a family we were use to having $70,000 a year between us.Then after the divorce my income was down to $25,000 a year so I needed that 25%.The husband usually is the bread winner.But then I feel sorry for the individual that only makes minimun wage.If he only earns lets say $20,000 ayear and has to pay 25% its very difficult to live these days on $15,000.I believe the percentage should be based on what you earn.Someone that makes $100,000 a year and pays out 25% can still live very comfortably on $75,000.For that matter they could still live very comfortably if he had to pay50%, but I feel for the person trying to live off of $15,000.Its like your working for nothing.Maybe thats why we have so many deadbeat dads.Because they truely just cant afford it.I think the system has to be changed and forget about the set rates.Each case should be looked at and no one should have to pay even the 17% if after they are considered to be at poverty level.Just to let you know after about a year things were changed around and I left the house and my husband came back to the house to raise the kids.Well it only took about 1 year and with me having to pay child support to him eventually my car was repo'ed and I got evicted from my apartment.I was basically homeless and I lost my job because I couldnt get there without transportation.I ended up in a shelter with nothing.We eventually worked things out and we had made a deal that I would not have to pay any more support and all back arrears would be wiped clean if I gave him the pension money that I would receive per our divorce agreement.That worked out but I was still left with nothing and had to start my life all over again with bad credit.Very Very hard to do.