Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,718,665 times
Reputation: 41376
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockJock1729
How many people have an explicit budget themselves, kids notwithstanding? How good are people at tracking receipts when child support isn't an issue?
I can get behind the idea of a mediator/supervisory service overseeing child support. A separate bank account for child support deposits and expenses, with a debit card used to track spending and direct deposit for contributions, would go a long way toward keeping everyone involved honest and current.
I think this is a excellent idea. Basically a great way to track expenses, speaking as a banker. There would be a built-in feature to kind of filter out red flags say if stuff for like bars and strip clubs is showing up. Excellent way to keep accountability.
I think that alimony needs to be eliminated. Alimony has out lived its usefulness. The idea that guardianship determinations be impartial. The party supporting the child has partial input into how child support funds are spent, ensuring that the child's needs are best met. In that the recipient isn't frivolous with the funds recieved.
I think the notion of keeping support ledgers, or overseeing expenses is a bit much.
The purpose of ordered support is to make sure the non custodial parent is paying their fair share into providing a household for the child. Hence the percentage formula for the payment order. On the flip side, the custodial parent is then expected to use that money in providing for the household. An awful lot can be considered under "providing the household." That doesn't mean there could be abuse of expenditures along the way, but as a taxpayer, I am not sure how much more money I want to pay in taxes to go into the family court legal system for the purpose of administering a beaurocrazy to manage every dollar of child support paid and spent.
I question how much sympathy the law should have here anyway. When two consenting adults get married and have a child, they should be fully aware of the contractural and financial obligations involved. Including in the event that they break up. If they cannot work together and make the marriage work, they still are obligated to each other, and the child, through the contract. If that ultimately means continuing support for the former spouse or child, due to the change in conditions of the marriage, then that is something they incurred by getting married and/or having a child in the first place.
Besides, it seems the bigger problem is getting the non-custodial parent to pay anything in support, IMO, and not whether too much is paid.
The average child support payment is $280/month. If you factor in additional rent, utilities, water and food and clothing, school expenses, dr. visits, extra driving, etc. I's say you've spent the $280/mo.
But those factors are supposed to add up to $560. The child support payment is supposed to cover HALF the expenses, remember? See, here's the problem. Women think the child support payments are supposed to cover ALL the child care expenses.
And I wasn't meaning to document every penny but to put a figure down that can be supported within the ballpark. For instance, if you're claiming $200 for food then you should be able to show your food expenses run about $600, cuz the CS isn't supposed to be covering your food and only half of the child's food. You're supposed to be covering your food and half the child's food.
BTW my CS is $980/mo. And I don't get to deduct the $200 or so I spend directly.
I think this is a excellent idea. Basically a great way to track expenses, speaking as a banker. There would be a built-in feature to kind of filter out red flags say if stuff for like bars and strip clubs is showing up. Excellent way to keep accountability.
If say friends of yours were getting a divorce, with or without kids involved, how would you implement your idea?
You gave a novel solution to the problem, but I'd really like to get your take on how YOU would lay it out
The problem with any reform of divorce laws is simply that "one size doesn't fit all". Alimony may be unnecessary in a situation where there are two working spouses. However, there are men who want a "stay-home wife" and the wife fails to get much in the way of job or employment skills. Suddenly, at age 50 she finds herself abandoned when her husband takes up with a younger woman. I shouldn't just limit this to women. Alimony can cut two ways. What if a spouse becomes handicapped or diseased during a marriage and their employment prospects seem very weak? What about a situation where a spouse works a low paying job for years to send the other spouse to college to obtain a professional degree? Than, once this spouse has done so and is making good money in his/her profession, they suddenly want out of the marriage and don't want to compensate the spouse who sacrificed to send them to school.
The system has to be able to take all kinds of circumstances into account. If people don't want to hire lawyers and don't want to fight over these issues than that's their business. However, those in these categories that do want to pursue recourse should be able to do so.
Not all custody of children should be joint custody. In my state, joint custody imposes burdens on spouses who move to obtain consent from the court to do so. Joint custody often means that before any real decision can be made that affects a child that all parties have to agree. All parties frequently disagree in divorce cases. The custodial parent ought to have power to make meaningful decisions like whether a child should be vaccinated, receive elective surgery, or attend a particular church without having to get an attorney and fight over such matters.
Sometimes all marital property and debt shouldn't be divided evenly. There may be a situation where a spouse has secretly "run up" large debts that only become apparent at the time of the divorce.
I sympathize with people who want a simple system that they believe is fair. Fair, though, is a word that can mean very different things to different people. Simple systems can work very quickly and accomplish a lot injustice in the process. Ultimately, you have to balance speed against equity. You have to consider the individual situation of the parties and not simply have arbitrary rules that pretend everyone is similarly situated. They aren't.
I think the notion of keeping support ledgers, or overseeing expenses is a bit much.
The purpose of ordered support is to make sure the non custodial parent is paying their fair share into providing a household for the child. Hence the percentage formula for the payment order. On the flip side, the custodial parent is then expected to use that money in providing for the household. An awful lot can be considered under "providing the household." That doesn't mean there could be abuse of expenditures along the way, but as a taxpayer, I am not sure how much more money I want to pay in taxes to go into the family court legal system for the purpose of administering a beaurocrazy to manage every dollar of child support paid and spent.
Where is the court making sure the custodial parent pays their fair share? That's the point behind the ledger and receipts, which I agree is overkill to track to the penny or even dollar, but there needs to be accountability on both sides. And I said I would not want it taxpayer supported and managed directly by the court but subbed out to mediators or some specific service for it.
I also don't think CS should be based as percentage of GROSS pay. NET pay is all that ends up in my pocket and is available to spend. When you base it on gross that 30% effectively becomes 50% or more of available funds.
But those factors are supposed to add up to $560. The child support payment is supposed to cover HALF the expenses, remember? See, here's the problem. Women think the child support payments are supposed to cover ALL the child care expenses.
And I wasn't meaning to document every penny but to put a figure down that can be supported within the ballpark. For instance, if you're claiming $200 for food then you should be able to show your food expenses run about $600, cuz the CS isn't supposed to be covering your food and only half of the child's food. You're supposed to be covering your food and half the child's food.
BTW my CS is $980/mo. And I don't get to deduct the $200 or so I spend directly.
I didn't read her post as meaning that the child support would cover all of the expenses. It isn't meant to be half, it is mean to be proportional to what each person can contribute. Otherwise, it would seem we'd make some more reliant on public assistance programs.
I think the expense tracking would have pros and cons. I do most of the grocery shopping in our family, not saying it couldn't be done, but it would be hard to know exactly where every penny goes. I don't keep track of who eats more apples or bananas, or who drank what fraction of a gallon of milk.
And I don't think it is a myth. I'd like to see the cost of child support split *equally* and that means documentation. For every dollar the father pays, the mother needs to show a dollar contribution herself. And it should not be a fixed percentage of income because child expenses are not fixed.
I am not sure what you are saying. By "the cost of child support split equally," do you mean the parents should match dollar for dollar? You also say child support should not be a fixed percentage of income." Are you saying, for example, that if the cost of raising a particular child could be shown to be approximately $7200 a year (just making something up, I have no idea), the parents would each contribute $300 a month (300 x 12 x 2) toward that cost, regardless of their income?
Like I said, I am not sure what you mean. I may be misinterpreting you but I don't know how child support can be split equally if not by percentage of income. If you are saying that if we're going to make a guy pay a quarter of his paycheck in child support, we should also make sure the mother of his children is paying a quarter of her paycheck on the children, then OK. I am not sure how to do it, but I think the evidence will be pretty easy to collect, especially on an aggregate basis. School fees, clothes, shoes, school supplies, healthcare premiums, copays, prescriptions, eyeglasses, dentist appointments, winter coats, boots, field trips, allowance, school lunches, birthday presents, birthday presents for their friends, video games ... yes, we can haggle over rent and groceries and the water bill, but there is no denying that children are very expensive. If the non-custodial parent's contribution pays for all this and the custodial parent seems to be living a luxurious life, especially if he or she does not work, while the non-custodial parent is living an impoverished life, then I definitely agree that the courts need to be involved. I would support any legislation that made it easier for a person to address something that may be unfair.
I am not sure the fixed, lump-sum approach (if that was what you were saying) is fair if it is applied to a general population of children, rather than determined on an individual basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
The incremental cost of larger housing, utilities, and food can be measured but need to be measured as I don't think they are as much as what gets awarded in child support. If a 1BR is $600/mo and a 2BR is $750/mo then the incremental cost is $150. I know women who feel they deserve the whole $750 compensated since that is the rent. Or base it on sqft like home office deductions.
The incremental cost of housing is probably easier to establish but it's still based on assumptions. If a single parent did not have the children, he or she would not necessarily live in a different apartment within the same complex. Expecting the whole $750 is probably unfair, though, and I agree that people should not assume they deserve it. I assume you're not talking about a housewife who was thrown out with the children and expected to live on the street.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
All that said, I agree the court won't want to be involved in managing receipts so it would have to be something where both parties use a mediator/supervisory service. It isn't too much to ask that the parents keep a ledger documenting child care expenses and the budget oversight might even help a lot of people stay out of financial messes.
Also, get rid of this "accustomed" BS when calculating alimony. Just because you had a certain standard of living at one point in your life doesn't mean you are entitled to it your whole life.
Okay, that seems reasonable. I would make some allowances for education, healthcare, etc. I do think children are entitled to live as they are accustomed, but if some of the current guidelines are unfair then I think they should be revisited. Dad does not need to live in a studio apartment so that his children can go to expensive summer camps, for instance.
Edited: This took me a while to type, sorry, so if you may have answered some of this already.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Big Diss...Question For You
