Child support- what do you think?

ravenwcatz

you know what I agree with that. It should be based on the cost of raising a child rather than income, but in some cases like this she's making probably less than 18k a year and he's making 90k a year. His other kids probably have a college fund I feel that her child should get the same treatment as the others. I commend you for taking care of your kids. You don't hear of too many single dads in the area I live in. People like you could def make a difference in some of the dead beat dads out there

The fact that she makes very little and he makes a lot doesn't change it. No, the kid shouldn't "have the same treatment as the others" unless he chooses to make it so. The only things he should ever be on the hook for is 1/2 the cost of raising the kid. She should have been more careful about having a kid if she wasn't ready for the responsibility. If he chooses to do more than the minimum, that's on him.

/\ /\ This again...I COMPLETELY agree that just because she makes crap money doesn't mean he should pay more. That goes along with the whole "I can't raise my family on minimum wage so raise it to $15". You want more you have to work for it. If you need more you need to work hard. And if you won't make more than I guess you've found your place in life...

Not to derail this whole conversation, but you do realize that in the last 40 years or so, workers' productivity has gone up something like 300%, while minimum wage has basically stayed the same (adjusted only for inflation). I think people are working hard enough.

That said, to be on topic, yes, I absolutely think she should file for support. She's working, she's in school. It doesn't sound like she's making poor life choices, rather, it sounds like she's committed to working her way to a better lifestyle for herself AND her child. There's no shame in getting assistance (whether that's child support or WIC or whatever) if you need it. Is the child-support system skewed? Probably, I haven't had exposure to it, personally. But just because dad freaks out and leaves when she chose to keep the child, that doesn't exempt him from having to deal with the consequences of HIS actions any more than she's choosing to deal with the consequences of hers.

BinaryPulsar

But that's where we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think it's right that men should be at the mercy of a woman's choice unless we're going to respect their choices. We don't get to choose to terminate or place to adopt, without their input, and also get to choose to give birth, without their input, and hold them financially responsible. Or I guess we get to, but I think it's very moral or becoming of us to do so.

You have decided that she tricked him. He actually deceived her.

Sure, in some cases women would use getting pregnant to manipulate a man.

But, the vast majority of the time it is the woman that is impacted most by getting pregnant. She goes through the pregnancy (sometimes with complications), gives birth, breastfeeds, and unless she abandons her child (I'm not talking about adoption, I mean if she chooses not to adopt and then abandons her child) she will raise the child, and she can't get out of it by claiming that it's not her child or that she was tricked. No ordinary person "gets rich" by becoming pregnant (it's really quite the opposite in reality). Sure, those professional athlete's situations are different, but that is not the norm for most people.

It just seems like people are going to such extremes. Women and men can do things to manipulate and harm and use children in the process. Mothers and fathers can be harmed by the decisions in court (custody battles). I don't want to get into the details, but it's really horrendous (for the children).

I don't think she was tricked. I think the guy is a grade A d!ck. And legally, I believe that the man should be responsible if the mother requires or requests it. In a perfect world, they'd all be happy about it, be devoted parents, emotionally and financially, etc. But in the case of the ones who said from the start that they don't want to be a parent, I think women should try to respect that decision and not throw around accusations of deadbeat dads. If you absolutely can't do it on your own, legally you can go after a guy who doesn't want to be a parent, but should you? If it's in the best interest of the child, sure.

Look, the mommy side of me wants to shout to go after this a-hole for everything she can get (for her child), because he sounds like a major POS. But I don't think all guys who don't want to take a role in a child's life are a-holes, anymore than I think that about women who want to place for adoption.

I'm talking about this one situation. In this situation the guy is an a-hole. And that has nothing to do with the pregnancy. He already was an a-hole before she got pregnant. He already has other children and he's being an a-hole to them.

Look...things going wrong in court is a personal issue for me right now...and it's all this "not looking at the real situation and being devil's advocate" that causes juries to make wrong decisions in court and allow people to not face the legal process (I'm talking about sex offenders). Because they ignore the actual situation and treat it as a hypothetical. But, I know this is off topic. People are not properly educated on a lot of legal issues before becoming jury members.

UsedToBeHusky

But that's where we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think it's right that men should be at the mercy of a woman's choice unless we're going to respect their choices. We don't get to choose to terminate or place to adopt, without their input, and also get to choose to give birth, without their input, and hold them financially responsible. Or I guess we get to, but I think it's very moral or becoming of us to do so.

You have decided that she tricked him. He actually deceived her.

Sure, in some cases women would use getting pregnant to manipulate a man.

But, the vast majority of the time it is the woman that is impacted most by getting pregnant. She goes through the pregnancy (sometimes with complications), gives birth, breastfeeds, and unless she abandons her child (I'm not talking about adoption, I mean if she chooses not to adopt and then abandons her child) she will raise the child, and she can't get out of it by claiming that it's not her child or that she was tricked. No ordinary person "gets rich" by becoming pregnant (it's really quite the opposite in reality). Sure, those professional athlete's situations are different, but that is not the norm for most people.

It just seems like people are going to such extremes. Women and men can do things to manipulate and harm and use children in the process. Mothers and fathers can be harmed by the decisions in court (custody battles). I don't want to get into the details, but it's really horrendous (for the children).

I don't think she was tricked. I think the guy is a grade A d!ck. And legally, I believe that the man should be responsible if the mother requires or requests it. In a perfect world, they'd all be happy about it, be devoted parents, emotionally and financially, etc. But in the case of the ones who said from the start that they don't want to be a parent, I think women should try to respect that decision and not throw around accusations of deadbeat dads. If you absolutely can't do it on your own, legally you can go after a guy who doesn't want to be a parent, but should you? If it's in the best interest of the child, sure.

Look, the mommy side of me wants to shout to go after this a-hole for everything she can get (for her child), because he sounds like a major POS. But I don't think all guys who don't want to take a role in a child's life are a-holes, anymore than I think that about women who want to place for adoption.

I'm talking about this one situation. In this situation the guy is an a-hole. And that has nothing to do with the pregnancy. He already was an a-hole before she got pregnant. He already has other children and he's being an a-hole to them.

Truly. I hope this guy has at least one son that will one day grow up to whip his *kitten*!

MyChocolateDiet

Is that why you are naked? Maybe you should go buy a new shirt.

Nope, it is because this is a fitness website and my avatar reflects my current progress.

I was trying to be funny, hence the use of the little winky guy.

Sorry, after going through the system and actually being saddled with child support payments for 6 months during a seperation that my ex tried to live on (she refused to get a job, and only realized "how much she loved me" when she was about to get evicted), my humor shuts off around this topic. Luckily, I came out of the long *kitten* battle on the winning end. Hard for someone with a federal felony, and affair that can be proven, and a domestic violence arrest and subsequent conviction that prompted the final divorce filing to think they will stand a very good chance in court. So we settled. But the amount of crap I had to put up with to get to that point, in addition to just how much I could have been screwed (I would have been on the hook for around $1500 per month child support), this is a bit of a sore spot.

This is what I'm referring to OP. I've been on various sides of this topic and a close onlooker (live in girlfriend of custody having father) and more. I can only say that things get incredibly messy and it's hard not to think often ....oO0(are these children really better off having to witness all this mayhem in the name of a few dollars and a nicer coat or shoes?)

djeffreys10

Personal bias admittance: I am a single dad. However, I am not paying child support. I am raising my children. They visit their mom, and I have never sought child support from her.

The whole child support system is skewed. I know how much money I would have to pay if I did not have custody of my kids, and the amount that actually cost is a small fraction of that. What child support then equates to is ex wife/ex gf/ex mistress/ex whatever support. Because it is way above and beyond what is actually needed to help raise kids, assuming the dad has a decent job.

I am of the firm belief that if child support were more in line with 1/2 the actual cost of raising kids (two parents, each should pay 1/2 the cost), you would see more people willingly stepping up to take care of it. There is no reason that child support should be based on salary, because the cost of raising the child is not changed by how much dad earns. No guy wants to be saddled paying a ton of money, of which only a fraction is actually needed to raise the kids. The end result is they are supporting a child AND the childs mother. It is immoral to expect a man to financially support a woman for 18+ years because he had a child with her. The child, yes. The woman, no.

There should be a baseline cost for raising kids, with locality adjustments. When child support is to be paid, the paying parent pays 1/2 that amount. It doesn't matter how much you make, you are equally responsible to support the child. And it should be adjusted to account for visitation. If the dad has the kids 30% of the time, his payment should be reduced to reflect that he is feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child 30% of the time.

Well said!!!! Couldn't agree with you more.

So if one parent makes 120,000 per year and another parent makes 45,000 per year then they should each pay the same amount? Just trying to get some clarification.

I am re-married and receive child support from my ex for our child. I make more money than him and so my contribution to child support is MORE that what he is responsible for. The child lives with me and is only at his father's 4 days a month (that's 48 days per year). So how exactly is his money going to me and not to my child?

Yes, it should be. You each contributed equally to creating a child. Income is irrelevant to that. You should each mbe equally responsible for the financial support of said child. If the cost of meeting your childs needs (not wants, not extras, NEEDS) multiplied by 1/2 is more than what he is paying, he should pay more. If it is more, then he should not be paying as much unless he chooses to do so.

And the argument, "I raise the kids, so I should get more" is invalid. If you look at raising your kids as something that you HAVE to do and as such should be financially compensated, rather than a privilage that you GET to do, you have further issues that I am not going to delve into.

Um, actually I said that I pay more AND raise the child. I'm not asking for more. IF I asked for more that would put HIM in financial hardship which could make it next to impossible for him to take his child every other weekend. That would not be fair to my son would it? So not exactly sure where you are getting the info that I said I should get more.

By YOUR argument you are saying that I SHOULD get more because I am responsible for paying MORE than he does. The state calculates how much it takes to raise the child and then parents are given a percentage to be responsible for out of 100%. I am responsible for 58% and he is responsible for 42% of that 100%.

So really you are saying that I should fight for that other 8% and he should have to pay more even though I make more than double what he does. And THAT is what is fair??

No, the state calculates how much they expect each of you would pay given your income, not how much it actually costs to meet the needs of the child. I am saying that, if a court order is involved, it should never be more than 1/2 if the actual cost of meeting the needs.

If the parents agree to anything outside of that, that is their perogative. I make a lot, my ex wife makes nothing. I agreed to give her 3 years to finish a college degree and actually be able to support herself before I would ask for child support. And I may or may not when that three years is up. That is an agreement we made outside of the court.

As some one mentioned it before, there's also costs outside the "usual" expected expenses. The parent who has primary custody has to do things like stay home with the sick kid, take them to the doctors, the dentists, etc. Having primary custody will affect a parent's ability to travel for work. This could affect that parents career resulting in lower salary than would have existed without these obligations.

It's a much more complicated issue than "It takes $100,000 to raise a kid for 18 years at middle class level, you pay $50,000 and I pay $50,000". You'd hope the parents could figure it out but sometimes you need the lawyers and the courts.

.

I don't HAVE to do things like take care of sick kids, dentists, etc. I GET to do things like take care of sick kids, dentists, etc. Looking at the situation any other way paints the children as a burden, and one for which the primary custodian should be financially compensated for bearing. The 6 months I didn't have my kids a few years ago, my ex would complain that I got to do whatever I wanted through the week, while she was stuck with the kids. I have never once been stuck with my kids. I have been blessed with every second I spend with them, including the time that I was up at midnight sunday night cleaning my sons room where he got sick. This is not something that should ease my financial obligation towards my children and increase their moms, it is something for which I should be thankful I am blessed to do.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

Is that why you are naked? Maybe you should go buy a new shirt.

Nope, it is because this is a fitness website and my avatar reflects my current progress.

I was trying to be funny, hence the use of the little winky guy.

Sorry, after going through the system and actually being saddled with child support payments for 6 months during a seperation that my ex tried to live on (she refused to get a job, and only realized "how much she loved me" when she was about to get evicted), my humor shuts off around this topic. Luckily, I came out of the long *kitten* battle on the winning end. Hard for someone with a federal felony, and affair that can be proven, and a domestic violence arrest and subsequent conviction that prompted the final divorce filing to think they will stand a very good chance in court. So we settled. But the amount of crap I had to put up with to get to that point, in addition to just how much I could have been screwed (I would have been on the hook for around $1500 per month child support), this is a bit of a sore spot.

Totally understandable why it's a sore spot for you! Kudos to you for stepping up and being the dad some us wish our exes were. :-)

I definitely understand and I'm sorry you had to go trough all that. I appreciate your point of view. I really do see and understand the differing point of views in this thread and I think you raise a fair point.

But try to remember that not all women are like you ex-wife. Women and men should be judged as individuals and I'd like to think that we can assume most people are "good" until the reveal themselves to be otherwise.

zacksnana

Some men are scum and don't care about their kids.

Some men are heroes and take care of their own and those left behind by their "fathers".

Truth! And it works both ways with women too...some work hard to do what is best and some see their child as a payday.

Agreed. Some people - women included - should not be allowed to reproduce.

larsensue

I have never asked for help, never will and like it that way. yes it is hard some months but I GET TO DECIDE EVERYTHING with no interferance from him at all. I have been on my own from the start and he has not come around or even called once! so guess what she is ALL mine! and I walked away with the best gift of all, a wonderful child and my freedome from an deadbeat!

This is what's wrong. If he pays support, he's not BUYING your kid, he's just being responsible and taking care of his kid. You don't get custody just bc you pay support and you can't deny custody/visitation just bc the parent stops paying. You're letting your child go through hard times bc you want her all to yourself. Based on what you mentioned, he doesn't want to be in her life, so why not just file for support so that your child doesn't have to struggle?

Canadian laws are different. and besides you don't know the whole story..... He is not a resposible person (drugs, alcohol, gambling) or a good father figure. if he had to pay he would want visitation/cutstody rights just to be an *kitten*! and here in canada he would get them and I could not in good conscience send her with him into a bad situation just for $$$. Sorry but don't tell me I am selfish without the whole story!

junejadesky

Personal bias admittance: I am a single dad. However, I am not paying child support. I am raising my children. They visit their mom, and I have never sought child support from her.

The whole child support system is skewed. I know how much money I would have to pay if I did not have custody of my kids, and the amount that actually cost is a small fraction of that. What child support then equates to is ex wife/ex gf/ex mistress/ex whatever support. Because it is way above and beyond what is actually needed to help raise kids, assuming the dad has a decent job.

I am of the firm belief that if child support were more in line with 1/2 the actual cost of raising kids (two parents, each should pay 1/2 the cost), you would see more people willingly stepping up to take care of it. There is no reason that child support should be based on salary, because the cost of raising the child is not changed by how much dad earns. No guy wants to be saddled paying a ton of money, of which only a fraction is actually needed to raise the kids. The end result is they are supporting a child AND the childs mother. It is immoral to expect a man to financially support a woman for 18+ years because he had a child with her. The child, yes. The woman, no.

There should be a baseline cost for raising kids, with locality adjustments. When child support is to be paid, the paying parent pays 1/2 that amount. It doesn't matter how much you make, you are equally responsible to support the child. And it should be adjusted to account for visitation. If the dad has the kids 30% of the time, his payment should be reduced to reflect that he is feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child 30% of the time.

Well said!!!! Couldn't agree with you more.

So if one parent makes 120,000 per year and another parent makes 45,000 per year then they should each pay the same amount? Just trying to get some clarification.

I am re-married and receive child support from my ex for our child. I make more money than him and so my contribution to child support is MORE that what he is responsible for. The child lives with me and is only at his father's 4 days a month (that's 48 days per year). So how exactly is his money going to me and not to my child?

Yes, it should be. You each contributed equally to creating a child. Income is irrelevant to that. You should each mbe equally responsible for the financial support of said child. If the cost of meeting your childs needs (not wants, not extras, NEEDS) multiplied by 1/2 is more than what he is paying, he should pay more. If it is more, then he should not be paying as much unless he chooses to do so.

And the argument, "I raise the kids, so I should get more" is invalid. If you look at raising your kids as something that you HAVE to do and as such should be financially compensated, rather than a privilage that you GET to do, you have further issues that I am not going to delve into.

Um, actually I said that I pay more AND raise the child. I'm not asking for more. IF I asked for more that would put HIM in financial hardship which could make it next to impossible for him to take his child every other weekend. That would not be fair to my son would it? So not exactly sure where you are getting the info that I said I should get more.

By YOUR argument you are saying that I SHOULD get more because I am responsible for paying MORE than he does. The state calculates how much it takes to raise the child and then parents are given a percentage to be responsible for out of 100%. I am responsible for 58% and he is responsible for 42% of that 100%.

So really you are saying that I should fight for that other 8% and he should have to pay more even though I make more than double what he does. And THAT is what is fair??

No, the state calculates how much tehy expect each of you would pay given your income, not how much it actually costs to raise the child. I am saying that, if a court order is involved, it should never be more than 1/2 if the actual cost of meeting the needs.

If the parents agree to anything outside of that, that is their perogative. I make a lot, my ex wife makes nothing. I agreed to give her 3 years to finish a college degree and actually be able to support herself before I would ask for child support. And I may or may not when that three years is up. That is an agreement we made outside of the court.

Wow I didn't know you were an expert on child support in my state!! That sure changes things. LOL I am responsible for 58% of what MY STATE says it will cost to raise a child. He is responsible for 42%. I could go ahead and e-mail you a copy of the court order if it would help clear things up.

I don't see how making it 50/50 would be fair in my case. Just as you said you wouldn't put your ex in financial hardship, I will not do the same to mine. It is in the hand of my State to figure out the amount because I would never enter an agreement outside of that with my ex, which is why I am thankful for my State's process. Maybe I'm missing the point you are trying to make.

If you chose not to do it to yours, that is your perogative. But for the state to force someone to pay more than half the cost of meeting a childs needs is wrong. And my agreement is not outside of the court. We agreed in mediation, and the judge signed off. As such, it is a court order. But it is a court order which was, in essence, written by us and our attorneys. It has the same legal bearing as if the court issued it, the court just had zero say in it's contents (other than approving what we agreed upon).

I see what you are saying.....

What my State does is take the joint income of BOTH parents and says that 34% of the joint income would go towards raising a child. So basically I pay 58% of that 34% calculation and he pays 48% of the 34%. I would think that it would be unfair of me to ask for 50% of that 34% because I make more than double of his salary. So really you are saying that it's unfair of my State to ask me to pay that 58% and that I should only have to pay 50% of that said 34% calculation right??

Ouch... my brain hurts from all the math so late on a Friday!!

simplycorey

I'm a child of divorce, and, honestly, I spend too much time in my own head. I've been mulling that question over since I was seven.

Child support is supposed to include:

-food
-clothes
-school supplies
-rent
-miscellaneous/incidentals

In my opinion, any money left over after those are all taken care of should go into a trust or college fund for the kid. That money might not be 100% necessary now, but once the kid is eighteen, no more child support - the father has no legal obligation to help his child inany way. Use any leftover money to keep supporting that kid through college, maybe grad school if it stretches that far; that is, as far as I can see, the right thing to do.

Utility bills? (Ever see what teens can do to a power bill?)
Health insurance premiums ?
Deductibles and copays?
Car insurance when teen wants to drive?

The list is endless ...

Some men are scum and don't care about their kids.

Some men are heroes and take care of their own and those left behind by their "fathers".

Moral of the story? We should find out what kind of man he is before having children with him. Would make things much easier all around.

This.

There is so much that goes into taking care of and providing for a child. True parenting is a huge sacrifice and so much harder than paying out a check once a month too. I wrote out a long post about how I feel and what I'm dealing with as a single mother but I think I am just going to leave it at that.

larsensue

I have never asked for help, never will and like it that way. yes it is hard some months but I GET TO DECIDE EVERYTHING with no interferance from him at all. I have been on my own from the start and he has not come around or even called once! so guess what she is ALL mine! and I walked away with the best gift of all, a wonderful child and my freedome from an deadbeat!

YES! this was the point of my earlier post, mine is almost 17 now and its still one of the best decisions i ever made in my life.

Right on Moma!! Me too!

MityMax96

I don't HAVE to do things like take care of sick kids, dentists, etc. I GET to do things like take care of sick kids, dentists, etc. Looking at the situation any other way paints the children as a burden, and one for which the primary custodian should be financially compensated for bearing. The 6 months I didn't have my kids a few years ago, my ex would complain that I got to do whatever I wanted through the week, while she was stuck with the kids. I have never once been stuck with my kids. I have been blessed with every second I spend with them, including the time that I was up at midnight sunday night cleaning my sons room where he got sick.

Amen

Enjoy the times with and the blessings that are your kids.
They grow up so damn quick.

hdyanneh

Wow. I guess I see why she doesn't apply for c/s. I am raising two boys from separate fathers both from long term relationships not one night stands and they have never denied paternity. The oldests father has never provided support of any kind. The youngests father does occasionally provide $100 or $200/mo be it very seldom. I have been the sole provider for my boys and they have a very priveliged lifestyle. Both fathers make $50-75k. I have never requested child support because I do well on my own and have always felt that it if you know you have a responsibility to a child you dont deny is yours You should be responsible enough to pay voluntarily. Some ppl probably think it is wrong of me but I do let my sons know what their fathers have provided them...Now that one is 17, I am considering applying for back child support because my son could use the money to start a business or whatever else he may need in the future. I have prepaid his college. I don't want or need anything for myself. I have always earned my way.

ldrosophila

I have never once been stuck with my kids. I have been blessed with every second I spend with them, including the time that I was up at midnight sunday night cleaning my sons room where he got sick. This is not something that should ease my financial obligation towards my children and increase their moms, it is something for which I should be thankful I am blessed to do.

Oh this made me cry. I hope my fiancé has those same thoughts 3 months from now.

djeffreys10

Personal bias admittance: I am a single dad. However, I am not paying child support. I am raising my children. They visit their mom, and I have never sought child support from her.

The whole child support system is skewed. I know how much money I would have to pay if I did not have custody of my kids, and the amount that actually cost is a small fraction of that. What child support then equates to is ex wife/ex gf/ex mistress/ex whatever support. Because it is way above and beyond what is actually needed to help raise kids, assuming the dad has a decent job.

I am of the firm belief that if child support were more in line with 1/2 the actual cost of raising kids (two parents, each should pay 1/2 the cost), you would see more people willingly stepping up to take care of it. There is no reason that child support should be based on salary, because the cost of raising the child is not changed by how much dad earns. No guy wants to be saddled paying a ton of money, of which only a fraction is actually needed to raise the kids. The end result is they are supporting a child AND the childs mother. It is immoral to expect a man to financially support a woman for 18+ years because he had a child with her. The child, yes. The woman, no.

There should be a baseline cost for raising kids, with locality adjustments. When child support is to be paid, the paying parent pays 1/2 that amount. It doesn't matter how much you make, you are equally responsible to support the child. And it should be adjusted to account for visitation. If the dad has the kids 30% of the time, his payment should be reduced to reflect that he is feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child 30% of the time.

Well said!!!! Couldn't agree with you more.

So if one parent makes 120,000 per year and another parent makes 45,000 per year then they should each pay the same amount? Just trying to get some clarification.

I am re-married and receive child support from my ex for our child. I make more money than him and so my contribution to child support is MORE that what he is responsible for. The child lives with me and is only at his father's 4 days a month (that's 48 days per year). So how exactly is his money going to me and not to my child?

Yes, it should be. You each contributed equally to creating a child. Income is irrelevant to that. You should each mbe equally responsible for the financial support of said child. If the cost of meeting your childs needs (not wants, not extras, NEEDS) multiplied by 1/2 is more than what he is paying, he should pay more. If it is more, then he should not be paying as much unless he chooses to do so.

And the argument, "I raise the kids, so I should get more" is invalid. If you look at raising your kids as something that you HAVE to do and as such should be financially compensated, rather than a privilage that you GET to do, you have further issues that I am not going to delve into.

Um, actually I said that I pay more AND raise the child. I'm not asking for more. IF I asked for more that would put HIM in financial hardship which could make it next to impossible for him to take his child every other weekend. That would not be fair to my son would it? So not exactly sure where you are getting the info that I said I should get more.

By YOUR argument you are saying that I SHOULD get more because I am responsible for paying MORE than he does. The state calculates how much it takes to raise the child and then parents are given a percentage to be responsible for out of 100%. I am responsible for 58% and he is responsible for 42% of that 100%.

So really you are saying that I should fight for that other 8% and he should have to pay more even though I make more than double what he does. And THAT is what is fair??

No, the state calculates how much tehy expect each of you would pay given your income, not how much it actually costs to raise the child. I am saying that, if a court order is involved, it should never be more than 1/2 if the actual cost of meeting the needs.

If the parents agree to anything outside of that, that is their perogative. I make a lot, my ex wife makes nothing. I agreed to give her 3 years to finish a college degree and actually be able to support herself before I would ask for child support. And I may or may not when that three years is up. That is an agreement we made outside of the court.

Wow I didn't know you were an expert on child support in my state!! That sure changes things. LOL I am responsible for 58% of what MY STATE says it will cost to raise a child. He is responsible for 42%. I could go ahead and e-mail you a copy of the court order if it would help clear things up.

I don't see how making it 50/50 would be fair in my case. Just as you said you wouldn't put your ex in financial hardship, I will not do the same to mine. It is in the hand of my State to figure out the amount because I would never enter an agreement outside of that with my ex, which is why I am thankful for my State's process. Maybe I'm missing the point you are trying to make.

If you chose not to do it to yours, that is your perogative. But for the state to force someone to pay more than half the cost of meeting a childs needs is wrong. And my agreement is not outside of the court. We agreed in mediation, and the judge signed off. As such, it is a court order. But it is a court order which was, in essence, written by us and our attorneys. It has the same legal bearing as if the court issued it, the court just had zero say in it's contents (other than approving what we agreed upon).

I see what you are saying.....

What my State does is take the joint income of BOTH parents and says that 34% of the joint income would go towards raising a child. So basically I pay 58% of that 34% calculation and he pays 48% of the 34%. I would think that it would be unfair of me to ask for 50% of that 34% because I make more than double of his salary. So really you are saying that it's unfair of my State to ask me to pay that 58% and that I should only have to pay 50% of that said 34% calculation right??

Ouch... my brain hurts from all the math so late on a Friday!!

So you just admitted that my assumption was correct. The states do not calculate how much providing for your kids needs costs, it assumes that a certain portion of your income will be spent and acts accordingly. In a given locality, the costs of meeting a childs needs are pretty much constant, regardless of income. And neither parent should be REQUIRED to pay more than 1/2 that cost. Anything above and beyond that is above and beyond providing for the needs of the child, and should be at the individuals descretion.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

I don't HAVE to do things like take care of sick kids, dentists, etc. I GET to do things like take care of sick kids, dentists, etc. Looking at the situation any other way paints the children as a burden, and one for which the primary custodian should be financially compensated for bearing. The 6 months I didn't have my kids a few years ago, my ex would complain that I got to do whatever I wanted through the week, while she was stuck with the kids. I have never once been stuck with my kids. I have been blessed with every second I spend with them, including the time that I was up at midnight sunday night cleaning my sons room where he got sick.

Amen

Enjoy the times with and the blessings that are your kids.
They grow up so damn quick.

Yeah, I love my kids they definitely ARE a blessing, but yeah, I still consider taking care of them when they are sick as a "burden".

MyChocolateDiet

But that's where we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think it's right that men should be at the mercy of a woman's choice unless we're going to respect their choices. We don't get to choose to terminate or place to adopt, without their input, and also get to choose to give birth, without their input, and hold them financially responsible. Or I guess we get to, but I think it's very moral or becoming of us to do so.

You have decided that she tricked him. He actually deceived her.

Sure, in some cases women would use getting pregnant to manipulate a man.

But, the vast majority of the time it is the woman that is impacted most by getting pregnant. She goes through the pregnancy (sometimes with complications), gives birth, breastfeeds, and unless she abandons her child (I'm not talking about adoption, I mean if she chooses not to adopt and then abandons her child) she will raise the child, and she can't get out of it by claiming that it's not her child or that she was tricked. No ordinary person "gets rich" by becoming pregnant (it's really quite the opposite in reality). Sure, those professional athlete's situations are different, but that is not the norm for most people.

It just seems like people are going to such extremes. Women and men can do things to manipulate and harm and use children in the process. Mothers and fathers can be harmed by the decisions in court (custody battles). I don't want to get into the details, but it's really horrendous (for the children).

I don't think she was tricked. I think the guy is a grade A d!ck. And legally, I believe that the man should be responsible if the mother requires or requests it. In a perfect world, they'd all be happy about it, be devoted parents, emotionally and financially, etc. But in the case of the ones who said from the start that they don't want to be a parent, I think women should try to respect that decision and not throw around accusations of deadbeat dads. If you absolutely can't do it on your own, legally you can go after a guy who doesn't want to be a parent, but should you? If it's in the best interest of the child, sure.

Look, the mommy side of me wants to shout to go after this a-hole for everything she can get (for her child), because he sounds like a major POS. But I don't think all guys who don't want to take a role in a child's life are a-holes, anymore than I think that about women who want to place for adoption.

I'm talking about this one situation. In this situation the guy is an a-hole. And that has nothing to do with the pregnancy. He already was an a-hole before she got pregnant. He already has other children and he's being an a-hole to them.

Look...things going wrong in court is a personal issue for me right now...and it's all this "not looking at the real situation and being devil's advocate" that causes juries to make wrong decisions in court and allow people to not face the legal process (I'm talking about sex offenders). Because they ignore the actual situation and treat it as a hypothetical. But, I know this is off topic. People are not properly educated on a lot of legal issues before becoming jury members.

Well not the generality of courts and devil's advocate stuff no that part's not off topic. It is case specific and as I said the specific players ACTUALLY involved are the one's who should be deciding whether to involve courts in this personal and so far adequately handled matter. Once the court is involved you are open to opinions like binary is suggesting. Some people don't want to open their lives up to someone else's opinion like that. Did your friend ask you for money ever or live with you that makes you feel entitled to weigh in on the raising of the child?

MityMax96

Yeah, I love my kids they definitely ARE a blessing, but yeah, I still consider taking care of them when they are sick as a "burden".

Such is the burden we bear as parents.

I am certain our parents did the same.

junejadesky

Personal bias admittance: I am a single dad. However, I am not paying child support. I am raising my children. They visit their mom, and I have never sought child support from her.

The whole child support system is skewed. I know how much money I would have to pay if I did not have custody of my kids, and the amount that actually cost is a small fraction of that. What child support then equates to is ex wife/ex gf/ex mistress/ex whatever support. Because it is way above and beyond what is actually needed to help raise kids, assuming the dad has a decent job.

I am of the firm belief that if child support were more in line with 1/2 the actual cost of raising kids (two parents, each should pay 1/2 the cost), you would see more people willingly stepping up to take care of it. There is no reason that child support should be based on salary, because the cost of raising the child is not changed by how much dad earns. No guy wants to be saddled paying a ton of money, of which only a fraction is actually needed to raise the kids. The end result is they are supporting a child AND the childs mother. It is immoral to expect a man to financially support a woman for 18+ years because he had a child with her. The child, yes. The woman, no.

There should be a baseline cost for raising kids, with locality adjustments. When child support is to be paid, the paying parent pays 1/2 that amount. It doesn't matter how much you make, you are equally responsible to support the child. And it should be adjusted to account for visitation. If the dad has the kids 30% of the time, his payment should be reduced to reflect that he is feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child 30% of the time.

Well said!!!! Couldn't agree with you more.

So if one parent makes 120,000 per year and another parent makes 45,000 per year then they should each pay the same amount? Just trying to get some clarification.

I am re-married and receive child support from my ex for our child. I make more money than him and so my contribution to child support is MORE that what he is responsible for. The child lives with me and is only at his father's 4 days a month (that's 48 days per year). So how exactly is his money going to me and not to my child?

Yes, it should be. You each contributed equally to creating a child. Income is irrelevant to that. You should each mbe equally responsible for the financial support of said child. If the cost of meeting your childs needs (not wants, not extras, NEEDS) multiplied by 1/2 is more than what he is paying, he should pay more. If it is more, then he should not be paying as much unless he chooses to do so.

And the argument, "I raise the kids, so I should get more" is invalid. If you look at raising your kids as something that you HAVE to do and as such should be financially compensated, rather than a privilage that you GET to do, you have further issues that I am not going to delve into.

Um, actually I said that I pay more AND raise the child. I'm not asking for more. IF I asked for more that would put HIM in financial hardship which could make it next to impossible for him to take his child every other weekend. That would not be fair to my son would it? So not exactly sure where you are getting the info that I said I should get more.

By YOUR argument you are saying that I SHOULD get more because I am responsible for paying MORE than he does. The state calculates how much it takes to raise the child and then parents are given a percentage to be responsible for out of 100%. I am responsible for 58% and he is responsible for 42% of that 100%.

So really you are saying that I should fight for that other 8% and he should have to pay more even though I make more than double what he does. And THAT is what is fair??

No, the state calculates how much tehy expect each of you would pay given your income, not how much it actually costs to raise the child. I am saying that, if a court order is involved, it should never be more than 1/2 if the actual cost of meeting the needs.

If the parents agree to anything outside of that, that is their perogative. I make a lot, my ex wife makes nothing. I agreed to give her 3 years to finish a college degree and actually be able to support herself before I would ask for child support. And I may or may not when that three years is up. That is an agreement we made outside of the court.

Wow I didn't know you were an expert on child support in my state!! That sure changes things. LOL I am responsible for 58% of what MY STATE says it will cost to raise a child. He is responsible for 42%. I could go ahead and e-mail you a copy of the court order if it would help clear things up.

I don't see how making it 50/50 would be fair in my case. Just as you said you wouldn't put your ex in financial hardship, I will not do the same to mine. It is in the hand of my State to figure out the amount because I would never enter an agreement outside of that with my ex, which is why I am thankful for my State's process. Maybe I'm missing the point you are trying to make.

If you chose not to do it to yours, that is your perogative. But for the state to force someone to pay more than half the cost of meeting a childs needs is wrong. And my agreement is not outside of the court. We agreed in mediation, and the judge signed off. As such, it is a court order. But it is a court order which was, in essence, written by us and our attorneys. It has the same legal bearing as if the court issued it, the court just had zero say in it's contents (other than approving what we agreed upon).

I see what you are saying.....

What my State does is take the joint income of BOTH parents and says that 34% of the joint income would go towards raising a child. So basically I pay 58% of that 34% calculation and he pays 48% of the 34%. I would think that it would be unfair of me to ask for 50% of that 34% because I make more than double of his salary. So really you are saying that it's unfair of my State to ask me to pay that 58% and that I should only have to pay 50% of that said 34% calculation right??

Ouch... my brain hurts from all the math so late on a Friday!!

So you just admitted that my assumption was correct. The states do not calculate how much providing for your kids needs costs, it assumes that a certain portion of your income will be spent and acts accordingly. In a given locality, the costs of meeting a childs needs are pretty much constant, regardless of income. And neither parent should be REQUIRED to pay more than 1/2 that cost. Anything above and beyond that is above and beyond providing for the needs of the child, and should be at the individuals descretion.

Right... I just didn't understand what you were getting at. So basically you think that I am being treated unfairly for having to be required to pay more than 1/2 the cost that they have calculated. And that no state should require more than a 50% contribution from any parent.... right??

Collier78

Personal bias admittance: I am a single dad. However, I am not paying child support. I am raising my children. They visit their mom, and I have never sought child support from her.

The whole child support system is skewed. I know how much money I would have to pay if I did not have custody of my kids, and the amount that actually cost is a small fraction of that. What child support then equates to is ex wife/ex gf/ex mistress/ex whatever support. Because it is way above and beyond what is actually needed to help raise kids, assuming the dad has a decent job.

I am of the firm belief that if child support were more in line with 1/2 the actual cost of raising kids (two parents, each should pay 1/2 the cost), you would see more people willingly stepping up to take care of it. There is no reason that child support should be based on salary, because the cost of raising the child is not changed by how much dad earns. No guy wants to be saddled paying a ton of money, of which only a fraction is actually needed to raise the kids. The end result is they are supporting a child AND the childs mother. It is immoral to expect a man to financially support a woman for 18+ years because he had a child with her. The child, yes. The woman, no.

There should be a baseline cost for raising kids, with locality adjustments. When child support is to be paid, the paying parent pays 1/2 that amount. It doesn't matter how much you make, you are equally responsible to support the child. And it should be adjusted to account for visitation. If the dad has the kids 30% of the time, his payment should be reduced to reflect that he is feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child 30% of the time.

Well said!!!! Couldn't agree with you more.

So if one parent makes 120,000 per year and another parent makes 45,000 per year then they should each pay the same amount? Just trying to get some clarification.

I am re-married and receive child support from my ex for our child. I make more money than him and so my contribution to child support is MORE that what he is responsible for. The child lives with me and is only at his father's 4 days a month (that's 48 days per year). So how exactly is his money going to me and not to my child?

Yes, it should be. You each contributed equally to creating a child. Income is irrelevant to that. You should each mbe equally responsible for the financial support of said child. If the cost of meeting your childs needs (not wants, not extras, NEEDS) multiplied by 1/2 is more than what he is paying, he should pay more. If it is more, then he should not be paying as much unless he chooses to do so.

And the argument, "I raise the kids, so I should get more" is invalid. If you look at raising your kids as something that you HAVE to do and as such should be financially compensated, rather than a privilage that you GET to do, you have further issues that I am not going to delve into.

Um, actually I said that I pay more AND raise the child. I'm not asking for more. IF I asked for more that would put HIM in financial hardship which could make it next to impossible for him to take his child every other weekend. That would not be fair to my son would it? So not exactly sure where you are getting the info that I said I should get more.

By YOUR argument you are saying that I SHOULD get more because I am responsible for paying MORE than he does. The state calculates how much it takes to raise the child and then parents are given a percentage to be responsible for out of 100%. I am responsible for 58% and he is responsible for 42% of that 100%.

So really you are saying that I should fight for that other 8% and he should have to pay more even though I make more than double what he does. And THAT is what is fair??

No, the state calculates how much they expect each of you would pay given your income, not how much it actually costs to meet the needs of the child. I am saying that, if a court order is involved, it should never be more than 1/2 if the actual cost of meeting the needs.

If the parents agree to anything outside of that, that is their perogative. I make a lot, my ex wife makes nothing. I agreed to give her 3 years to finish a college degree and actually be able to support herself before I would ask for child support. And I may or may not when that three years is up. That is an agreement we made outside of the court.

As some one mentioned it before, there's also costs outside the "usual" expected expenses. The parent who has primary custody has to do things like stay home with the sick kid, take them to the doctors, the dentists, etc. Having primary custody will affect a parent's ability to travel for work. This could affect that parents career resulting in lower salary than would have existed without these obligations.

It's a much more complicated issue than "It takes $100,000 to raise a kid for 18 years at middle class level, you pay $50,000 and I pay $50,000". You'd hope the parents could figure it out but sometimes you need the lawyers and the courts.

.

I don't HAVE to do things like take care of sick kids, dentists, etc. I GET to do things like take care of sick kids, dentists, etc. Looking at the situation any other way paints the children as a burden, and one for which the primary custodian should be financially compensated for bearing. The 6 months I didn't have my kids a few years ago, my ex would complain that I got to do whatever I wanted through the week, while she was stuck with the kids. I have never once been stuck with my kids. I have been blessed with every second I spend with them, including the time that I was up at midnight sunday night cleaning my sons room where he got sick. This is not something that should ease my financial obligation towards my children and increase their moms, it is something for which I should be thankful I am blessed to do.

I wish more fathers thought like you. Unfortunately alot don't. While my children have never been a burden to me, and I LOVE that my 7 year old only wants to cuddle with mommy when he's sick, there have been times in my life where this has caused a financial burden. I have run out of sick days at times and had to take unpaid days to be home caring for them, because he doesn't want the germs at his house, and daycare won't take them if they are sick, though he can choose to telecommute if he wants. Each individual situation is unique and not all of us are like your ex.