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.
So you're saying people "must" work to pay CS because CS is expensive. Not because the court requires them to "get a job"?
It sounds like you're dealing with an incredibly difficult situation. But it may be worth remembering: pretty much all parents are shelling out "big dough" for their kids.
What I'm saying is that the court does not require the custodial parent to financially support their own children. Many do, but that doesn't mean the court requires it.
The computations are wrong. The non custodial would on avg pay 25% of the state based accessment on housing and 2 utilities. The guardian pays 50℅ of their own and 25% of the children's portion. The guardians choice in residing in an expensive area is on them. The state will use the current pricing that is reported thru counties on cost of living.
Highly dependent on what state the calculation is done in. In the state I'm familiar with, it's strictly calculated off the income of both parents and the % each parent pays of total income. The only two expenses thrown into the mix is day care, and health insurance. COL and housing is not a consideration.
I know other states do it much differently
Last edited by BostonMike7; 02-03-2017 at 08:10 AM..
Highly dependent on what state the calculation is done in. In the state I'm familiar with, it's strictly calculated off the income of both parents and the % each parent pays of total income. The only two expenses thrown into the mix is day care, and health insurance. COL and housing is not a consideration.
I know other states do it much differently
What you are claiming is the company line, but the reality is income of the custodial parent changes the cs payment of the ncp very little. In your state.
But wait, I thought it was important for parents to financially support their kids? I guess everybody is equal but some are more equal than others.
Well then I suppose you will enjoy the new terminology in Illinois. There is no longer a CP and NCP. Regardless of who the child primarily lives with, the person paying CS is now called the "Supporting Parent".
That should clear up any confusion as to who is doing the heavy lifting$$$.
It is right to pay child support whether you see the child or not. There are a lot of cases in which the mother moves across the country, or marries another man who raises the baby, and doesn't want the father involved. It is not always the bio dad's fault when there is no contact.
But, since you are responsible, you need to support the child. Someday, the child will show up on your doorstep, and you will want him to know you did your part financially.
Are we talking about NYC or Boston, MA COL expenses, or Mississippi or South Carolina expenses?
Here in MA, I know of several individuals getting $2K/month award for 2-3 children. Seems like a windfall, but keep in mind that here, rent for a 2 or 3 br apartment can be $2-3K, day care can be $300-350/week depending on the age. Part of CS covers the additional housing and care costs and not just physical items such as food/clothing.
.
Very true, it does depend. In my state (Illinois) as the primary parent, the state guideline for CS from me to the mother is approximately $2700/mo for one child. My Ex doesn't even have to work with that level of tax free income. I don't let it keep me up at night but it is irritating seeing all of the folks on this thread putting their children DFL instead of doing what's best for the kids. But I also realize that this is simply a way for the state to keep her off the government dole. It's my fault since I chose her but it is frustrating that the state enables her to remain unemployed indefinitely while I have to work overtime to pay the "child support".
Indentured servitude is alive and well in the United States.
Very true, it does depend. In my state (Illinois) as the primary parent, the state guideline for CS from me to the mother is approximately $2700/mo for one child. My Ex doesn't even have to work with that level of tax free income. I don't let it keep me up at night but it is irritating seeing all of the folks on this thread putting their children DFL instead of doing what's best for the kids. But I also realize that this is simply a way for the state to keep her off the government dole. It's my fault since I chose her but it is frustrating that the state enables her to remain unemployed indefinitely while I have to work overtime to pay the "child support".
Indentured servitude is alive and well in the United States.
Are you telling me that you would not work if you were still married to her?
Are you seriously thinking you would not work *overtime* if you were still married?
Are you saying that if you were married and she was a SAHM, that you would consider yourself an indentured servant?
My ex-dil does not work. Her children are now older, but one is still autistic. My ds pays his child support and not only that but he has half custody - they live half time at each house. Fortunately, the houses are within walking distance of each other. She has the big house though and probably has more savings as her dad gives her money every year. Does my son resent it? No, he realizes that he is obligated to support his kids.
Do you think a man or woman should be forced to pay child support to the custodial parent while no being allowed access to their children? I personally think if you have to pay child support you must be allowed to see you children, because any parent that cares enough to support their kid financially also wants to spend time with them in person. But I don't see why you should be forced to support a kid that you're not even allowed to see (either by the other parent or whoever).
Funny, my ex CHOOSES not to see his daughter, hasn't in over a year although he has regular visitation rights. IMHO, he should be paying MORE than if he were seeing her, because I'm still feeding/entertaining/driving her on all of those weekends and days that are HIS responsibility. She is 14 so there is always something every weekend but he takes zero responsibility for it.
Let's take some extreme example. Lets say the dad is really abusive and he is a horrible influence with the kids. In that case, i can see why he doesn't get to spend time with his kids. I think he should still pay child support because he did help create those kids and those kids are his responsibility.
Let's take another example. If the mom will flat out refuse to let her ex sees his kids out of spite, despite him being a good guy and good role model, then he should still pay for child support but also take his case to court.
I'm not going to lie, though. If i had kids, lost custody, and was not able to see them again, i wouldn't pay child support, despite me being legally required. (they may just garnish my wages at that point)
Yes I think if you fathered a child you should pay to support them. If the parent having custody refuses to let the other parent see the child they should have to settle it in court. Unfortunately some sperm donors would not be good influences on a child.
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.
