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.
What about the custodial parent. There are many situations where siblings share a room, sleep on the couch, with their parent, etc. Why would there be seperate standards for the custodial parent?
Think about it this way, if part of the CS is to subsidize an adequate home for the kids (because the custodial parent needs more room) where they stay 265 days of the year do you expect the non custodial should be forced to provide the same sleeping arrangements for the approximately 100 days/yr and still pay the same CS or should their CS be reduced to cover the cost of higher rent for extra bedrooms.
There shouldn't be different standards. As for the child support, I don't think they take anything into account when they figure it except gross income of both parents. At least that's how it was in my case. But then I didn't ask for anything extra, even though he didn't show up and I could have owned him. But then I guess if the kid had tuition or medical bills they would consider it?
But I personally think child support should be a case by case basis of true expenses, not some set percentage point because the courts are too lazy to take the time.
I suppose I had a much better divorce than most people. I left with nothing, I did not want anything, including an acrimonious relationship with a person I did not want a relationship with any longer at all. I knew my ex was chomping at the bit when I left him, to have a long, protracted legal battle, that he could draw out for years. I completely ruined it for him by letting him have everything. But, he knows that...he KNOWS I could have taken the house, half of his pension, had alimony...so, he is very solicitious when we have dealings. I never cared about child support, he could pay it or not, that was between him and his children. And he choose to pay it, because if he had not, they would have gone without things like sports, piano lessons, dance lessons.
There shouldn't be different standards. As for the child support, I don't think they take anything into account when they figure it except gross income of both parents. At least that's how it was in my case. But then I didn't ask for anything extra, even though he didn't show up and I could have owned him. But then I guess if the kid had tuition or medical bills they would consider it?
But I personally think child support should be a case by case basis of true expenses, not some set percentage point because the courts are too lazy to take the time.
If you would require the non custodial parent to provide housing as tho he were the custodial to accomadate the kids as tho they were there all the time while taking CS it is a double standard.
Child support is to help provide for the kids, including housing. Normally the custodial parent needs more bedrooms which normally increases rent or the custodial parent gets the home. To help pay for this generally 30% of the non custodial parents is taken for CS, leaving him 30% less to pay for his own housing. Being they generally only get to see their kids every or every other weekend it is common to rent a cheaper (less bedrooms) dwelling. Personally, I think it unfair to expect the NCP to pay more rent to keep an extra bedroom while they are subsidising your rent so you can have adequate bedrooms.
That is why with shared custody (everyother week) no CS changes hands. Each parent is 100% responsible for providing for the kids during their week.
If you would require the non custodial parent to provide housing as tho he were the custodial to accomadate the kids as tho they were there all the time while taking CS it is a double standard.
Child support is to help provide for the kids, including housing. Normally the custodial parent needs more bedrooms which normally increases rent or the custodial parent gets the home. To help pay for this generally 30% of the non custodial parents is taken for CS, leaving him 30% less to pay for his own housing. Being they generally only get to see their kids every or every other weekend it is common to rent a cheaper (less bedrooms) dwelling. Personally, I think it unfair to expect the NCP to pay more rent to keep an extra bedroom while they are subsidising your rent so you can have adequate bedrooms.
That is why with shared custody (everyother week) no CS changes hands. Each parent is 100% responsible for providing for the kids during their week.
I agree with your comments as to the hypocrisy of CPs expecting an equal living condition. I'd also like to add the following:
CS and alimony are included in mortgage and rent ratios. As are any mortgages on the family home, which typically would go to the CP. Given the current housing environment flipping the mortgage, or selling the house, isn't that easy. As such, it may be impossible for the NCP to get any decent housing because of the debt ratios of the existing family housing and alimony and CS.
Further, the mortgage company isn't likely to remove the NCP from the mortgage, or any other loan for that matter. For example, if there is joint credit card debt and the CP agrees to pay the debt in the divorce settlement in order to obtain more joint assets and does not pay of the CCs then the NCP is still contractuarially responsible. Agreementsi in Family Court cannot modify existing contracts.
Regarding CS: CS is calculated based on a lot of variables. Money does change hands even in fully shared custody. It depends on the incomes of both parents, who provides HI, rent, other chldren, .... Also, CS can be paid from the CP to the NCP in certain cases. And incomes over a certain level the CS is up to the judge.
There shouldn't be different standards. As for the child support, I don't think they take anything into account when they figure it except gross income of both parents.
That hardly seems fair. Let's say the NCP is paying for the education, HI, and the mortgage of the family home and has a child from a prior marriage.
At least that's how it was in my case. But then I didn't ask for anything extra, even though he didn't show up and I could have owned him.
Show up for what? The hearing? No way a judge will fry anyone financially in absentia. And what is "anything extra"? Assets are split in the settlement. Income is income and are used to determine alimony and CS. Future income levels go into alimony determination and CS can be reset if there is a change in income of either party. What else is there you c/would have "owened"? His kidney?
But then I guess if the kid had tuition or medical bills they would consider it?
Typically medical expenses are split and any education is included separatly in the agreement.
But I personally think child support should be a case by case basis of true expenses, not some set percentage point because the courts are too lazy to take the time.
You really don't want that to happen. Letting a judge decide how much someone pays can lead to more problems than it solves.
Pay attention, it's not about my kids. So your right, the best interests of my kids is not driving the issue. My ex already answered that they will always have their own space unless he can't give it to them.
Well then just substitute “you or your friend” for “you”
If someone is making $75,000 a year and denies their children a bed just because they can, and they'd rather have season tickets to the Indians, than they are the one who needs to rethink their values.
Indian season tickets can be had for as little as $409/ ticket and as much as $5265/ticket. After allotting for taxes, CS, rent, living expenses, … it is more likely closer to $409 than it $5265. Let’s assume he gets a pair for $1500. That’s ~$125/month. Why don’t we just put a GPS on his wallet that goes off every time he opens it.
I just wanted to see if the answer was different if it involved their own kids. Because anyone can give an answer that seems the easiest when it's not about them.
I think most parents will respond they would rather their children have a relationship with the NCP than have a bedroom. I know I did. But, unfortunately my daughter had neither because her mother was more interested in how much money I’d be sending on the trip. Figure it out from there. The “parents” that are more interested in having a separate bedroom are typically those that will use visitation as a tool to extort more money. Seen it happen to a few of my friends.
My Dss doesnt have his own room. He's only 1 so we didnt find it to be needed. When he gets older though he will have his own room with us even though he's only here on weekends. If his father and I have a son then they would just share a room.
I think if the father had an extra room and just didnt want to give it to the child then thats a problem. If he doesnt have the extra room then whats the big deal. As long as the child doesnt feel unwanted while over there I dont see a problem.
At least that's how it was in my case. But then I didn't ask for anything extra, even though he didn't show up and I could have owned him.
Show up for what? The hearing? No way a judge will fry anyone financially in absentia. And what is "anything extra"? Assets are split in the settlement. Income is income and are used to determine alimony and CS. Future income levels go into alimony determination and CS can be reset if there is a change in income of either party. What else is there you c/would have "owened"? His kidney?
Yes, actually judges can and will do that if neither you or your lawyer bother to show up for the hearing. I was asked if I wanted both cars. I have no use for 2 though so I said no. I was asked if I wanted him to have the standard visitation, which would have been 6 weeks in the summer since he was out of state. Which I did object to because they were infant/toddler and there was no way he could take care of them that long. (He wasn't near his family). So I said 2 weeks in June and 2 in August. And he could see them any time he came home. I was asked if I wanted to be the one to claim both kids at tax time. I said we could do 1 and 1 as long as he was current paying child support. I was given all property (which wasn't much we didn't own a house). But I gave him the stuff he wanted. I was very sick when I was pregnant so I couldn't finish school. So I was asked if I thought I needed alimony for the 3 years it would take to finish my degree, but I said no.
I know there are many women who want to take the fathers for everything they can squeeze out of them, but that just makes even more ill feelings between the two. And it's the kids who suffer.
Pay attention, it's not about my kids. So your right, the best interests of my kids is not driving the issue. My ex already answered that they will always have their own space unless he can't give it to them.
Well then just substitute “you or your friend” for “you”
My post that you qouted said the people, she and she. No where did it say "you".
If someone is making $75,000 a year and denies their children a bed just because they can, and they'd rather have season tickets to the Indians, than they are the one who needs to rethink their values.
Indian season tickets can be had for as little as $409/ ticket and as much as $5265/ticket. After allotting for taxes, CS, rent, living expenses, … it is more likely closer to $409 than it $5265. Let’s assume he gets a pair for $1500. That’s ~$125/month. Why don’t we just put a GPS on his wallet that goes off every time he opens it.
Where I live, that $125 a month could get you 2 more rooms. The point was he can afford it. As some people, and I, were saying as long as the person can afford it they should have it.
I just wanted to see if the answer was different if it involved their own kids. Because anyone can give an answer that seems the easiest when it's not about them.
I think most parents will respond they would rather their children have a relationship with the NCP than have a bedroom. I know I did. But, unfortunately my daughter had neither because her mother was more interested in how much money I’d be sending on the trip. Figure it out from there. The “parents” that are more interested in having a separate bedroom are typically those that will use visitation as a tool to extort more money. Seen it happen to a few of my friends.
Why can't their be a good relationship and a bedroom if it can be afforded? In my mind the relationship should be a given, and the bedroom if it can be afforded. Not an either or situation.
Maybe you have had more experience with "bad" divorces than me? Actually, most people I know never bothered to get married so it's a completely different animal.
Maybe you have had more experience with "bad" divorces than me? Actually, most people I know never bothered to get married so it's a completely different animal.
Re. Tickets
What do you do when he has the kids? Do you sit there watching basic cable on a 15 year old TV so you can save the money for soccor camp? Do you use an 8 year old cell phone so you can buy them clothes at Abercrombie? I mean you CAN do those things if you really WANT to, but you likely have newer phone, TV, ... So you should look at yourself as well. Get my point? He's allowed to have a life.
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.
