Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    fjsmith81's Avatar
    fjsmith81 Posts: 122, Reputation: 11
    Junior Member
     
    #1

    Sep 24, 2008, 09:22 PM
    Opinions on child support
    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. Furthermore, 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 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's Avatar
    NowWhat Posts: 1,634, Reputation: 264
    Ultra Member
     
    #2

    Sep 25, 2008, 06:23 AM

    $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 responsibility should not change.
    His responsibility for her has changed - but not for his kids.

    And what if $2000 each IS 20 or 30%?
    fjsmith81's Avatar
    fjsmith81 Posts: 122, Reputation: 11
    Junior Member
     
    #3

    Sep 25, 2008, 11:52 PM

    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's Avatar
    JBeaucaire Posts: 5,426, Reputation: 997
    Software Expert
     
    #4

    Sep 26, 2008, 05:35 AM

    Giving birth is an attack?
    ScottGem's Avatar
    ScottGem Posts: 64,966, Reputation: 6056
    Computer Expert and Renaissance Man
     
    #5

    Sep 26, 2008, 06:22 AM

    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's Avatar
    froggy7 Posts: 1,801, Reputation: 242
    Ultra Member
     
    #6

    Sep 26, 2008, 07:42 AM

    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's Avatar
    Fr_Chuck Posts: 81,301, Reputation: 7692
    Expert
     
    #7

    Sep 26, 2008, 07:47 AM

    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 benefit 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.
    cdad's Avatar
    cdad Posts: 12,700, Reputation: 1438
    Internet Research Expert
     
    #8

    Sep 26, 2008, 01:06 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottGem View Post
    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.

    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 suffrage at any time and its surviving that that creates diversity. Having said that what would happen ( ripped from today's headlines ) if dad or mom lose their job through no fault of their 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 their boat or extra car so they can survive ? When divorce occurs what in fact you are doing is creating 2 separate families. To expect lifestyles not to change just isn't 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 today's 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 child's 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's Avatar
    this8384 Posts: 4,564, Reputation: 485
    Ultra Member
     
    #9

    Sep 26, 2008, 02:52 PM

    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 every time 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's Avatar
    lucytwo2 Posts: 57, Reputation: 2
    Junior Member
     
    #10

    Sep 26, 2008, 04:51 PM
    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 $15,000.Its like your working for nothing.Maybe that's why we have so many deadbeat dads.Because they truly just can't 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 couldn't 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.
    JudyKayTee's Avatar
    JudyKayTee Posts: 46,503, Reputation: 4600
    Uber Member
     
    #11

    Sep 26, 2008, 05:27 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by lucytwo2 View Post
    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 can't 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.


    The 17%, etc. is not the case in all States. I assume you are in NY?

    And, yes, I've heard absolute horror stories about support, both spousal and child.
    froggy7's Avatar
    froggy7 Posts: 1,801, Reputation: 242
    Ultra Member
     
    #12

    Sep 26, 2008, 10:15 PM

    Another thought occurred to me after pondering this for a while. Lets say that mom has two kids and is getting 2000/month/kid, so 4K per month per child. If I understand the law correctly (and I may not), that's not taxed, so that's 48K a year. How do you teach these children the value of hard work and effort, if they see mom staying home with them and yet they are still able to afford a good middle-class lifestyle? And what happens when they start working and find out that life is not as easy as it appeared when they were growing up?

    Or, as happened to a step-niece of mine... what happens to daddy's girl when she turns 18 and daddy abruptly stops buying her a new car every time she wrecks one, kicks her out of the house, cuts off her $800/month allowance, and stops making all her problems with the law go away, like he did up 'til then? She's not prepared at all for life on her own, and I put a lot of the blame on being overindulged when younger.
    fjsmith81's Avatar
    fjsmith81 Posts: 122, Reputation: 11
    Junior Member
     
    #13

    Sep 27, 2008, 12:20 AM

    Yes, JBeau, for me nine months of complicated pregnancy, and twenty three hours of excruciating natural labor, is an attack. Fortunately, I won and got a beautiful and very agreeable little girl out of it.

    For me as a single parent. I know that children are expensive. I have heard people say well children don't eat that much and their clothes aren't that expensive, and so on and so forth. I think that too many times people view children as basically a percentage of a person. I think that it is quite the contrary. I think that they are more expensive than an adult sometimes. My daughter, for example eats three meal a day and three snacks. I could seriously get away with eating only two. My daughter has to have a new wardrobe every season, because she grows so fast. I could wear the same clothes for the next ten years. I have to pay for daycare expenses, medical, and extracurricular activities (like the zoo, aquarium, gymboree, and etc.). Gas to get her to those places. And by myself, I could live in a studio apartment, but she needs her own room. You know that stuff adds up, and daycare alone is well over $500 a month. So when I hear fathers saying that they don't want to give up that 20 to 30% I think that it is a little unsettling. You know people have told my child's father that he pays too much, and we have had a few discussions about it, but I just tell him if the shoe were on the other foot I would be paying more because I know she is worth it. I think that father's should think like that, especially if they know that their child is being well taken care of.

    Froggy, If I could stay at home with her I would in a heartbeat, and I don't think that she would be spoiled by that. I think that it depends on the child. Sure you see children that live on their parents dime forever, but there are children that when they get that reality check they strive and work hard to maintain that level of comfort that they had growing up. But, more often than not it happens the other way around, where mothers get that child support check or none at all and they still have to work two jobs. And those kids aren't properly raised, because the mother it trying to put food on the table, and has no time to tell them that robbing the neighbors is wrong:)

    Lucy I really do agree with you it should be on a case by case level, but I would take it a step further and really take into account both parent's financial state and then determine the set amount for child support.
    this8384's Avatar
    this8384 Posts: 4,564, Reputation: 485
    Ultra Member
     
    #14

    Sep 27, 2008, 07:42 AM

    I agree, both parent's financial situation should be considered.

    Here's another example of how ridiculous the system is in this state:
    My husband fell behind last year on his support about $300-400 when he was laid off due to lack of work. They intercepted his tax refund in order to repay what he owed; that's fine by us.
    My close friend, on the other hand, has been raising her 2 children on her own for the last 8 years. Her ex-husband owes her over $5,000 in support because he refuses to pay it on time. Do you think his refund gets intercepted? Nope. She called the state and they actually said to her, "Well, we had his return flagged for interception but someone let it go anyway."

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Child Support - 2 child living at separate parents - 1 child turning 18 soon. [ 6 Answers ]

I will try not to make this too long but I went through a 3 year court battle with my ex with our 2 kids who are now 17 (Daughter) and 15 (Son). My son has been living with his dad since he was like 9 because I let him. Court battle was dropped due to judge thinking my ex was lying after 3 years...

Legal age in Indiana to stop child support for a child in college [ 4 Answers ]

I need to know when I can legally stop paying support on my step son who is going to be 22 and is still in college


View more questions Search