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.
This is how it works. Your state has an amount established representing the monthly cost of supporting a child.
For simplicity's sake, let's say it's $1000.
Now. Parent A makes $30k per year. Parent B makes $20k. The total of their salaries is $50k.
Therefore...Parent A has 60% of the total income. Parent B has 40%. Those percentages apply to the child support total..
So if the child lives with Parent A, Parent B pays $400 a month in support. If the child lives with Parent B, Parent A pays $600 in support.
Now if the parents have a more complicated financial picture, where there are for example private schools and other luxuries and the income is higher, the support structure will also be complicated. But both parents always support the kid. Or are supposed to.
I was Parent A. Dd lived with me, and I had the larger income. I paid the rent for the house where we lived, bought her food and clothes and school things, paid fees for softball and band...but her father thought his $50 a week court-ordered support was too much because, after, all, he was paying for her cell phone.
You have a mistaken view of how the system works.
What if parent A has no job and zero income? According to what you are saying, parent A should then have their drivers license suspended and then be thrown in jail for failure to support their child. Since we all know that doesn't happen, effectively Parent A is not obligated to support their child.
Chew on this for a second: Parent A can literally pay ZERO for years and years and nothing will happen to them whatsoever, in fact they won't even be ordered to get a job. But if parent B doesn't (can't) fork over half their check for 2 weeks they will have their drivers license suspended and be thrown in jail if they can't come up with the money.
Factually, the custodial parent is not obligated to support their child.
Wrong. If a NC parent suspects the CS money is used for other than CS, they can take the custodial parent to court to prove the money is being spent as it should be.
Visitation is laid out in divorce or other agreements.
My ex was allowed to see his daughter whenever he wanted, yet he rarely paid his support.
1. You are wrong about taking a custodial parent to court for an accounting of the money. The courts official position is that the money can be spent on anything whether child related or not. The NCP is granted zero say in the allocation of the money and there is no remedy for failure to spend the money on the child(ren).
2. Visitation may be 'laid out' in the agreement, but there is no practical method of enforcing this. For myself, I've spent 20k in legal fees over the past 5 years trying to hold my ex accountable for following the parenting plan. I won't say I've gotten nowhere but it's been very time consuming and costly to get very lackluster results. Of course my daughter is the one who suffers but the truth is the court doesn't care about her at all.
3. Why don't you and your ex share 50/50 custody, splitting the time between your house and his? How is it fair or good for your child for her to grow up without a Dad?
3. Why don't you and your ex share 50/50 custody, splitting the time between your house and his? How is it fair or good for your child for her to grow up without a Dad?
According to what you are saying, parent A should then have their drivers license suspended and then be thrown in jail for failure to support their child.
Since we all know that doesn't happen, effectively Parent A is not obligated to support their child.
Chew on this for a second: Parent A can literally pay ZERO for years and years and nothing will happen to them whatsoever, in fact they won't even be ordered to get a job. But if parent B doesn't (can't) fork over half their check for 2 weeks they will have their drivers license suspended and be thrown in jail if they can't come up with the money.
Factually, the custodial parent is not obligated to support their child.
MightyQueen said no such thing and you know it. You're just itching for a fight.
When a child/children lives the majority of the time with one parent, that parent is supporting the child because they are paying rent, utilities, groceries, school supplies, clothes, transportation, and all the little things that come up that kids need. THAT IS THE SUPPORT. They don't need to pay support to the other parent.
And a parent will not be thrown in jail and have their license suspended if they don't pay for two weeks; you and I both know that's a flat out lie. My ex didn't pay CS for 18 months and nothing happened to him except that now he has to pay a little extra to pay the arrearage. I'm sure a dozen other custodial mothers on this board could share similar stories.
In your made up scenario, Parent A is a deadbeat mom that you want to yell about on this board because the courts treat women differently, right? And this has apparently become a rampant problem in society, correct? Or you think custodial parents should be paying child support also for some reason, right? Am I getting your wavelength?
What if parent A has no job and zero income? According to what you are saying, parent A should then have their drivers license suspended and then be thrown in jail for failure to support their child.
In Ohio, if you dont pay your support, they DO suspend your license. Then you have a court date and are given 30d to pay up to date, if you do not, you go to jail. Plus its taken from your taxes if you file.
They DONT CARE if you dont have a job ( they even have silly programs to "help" you) or no income. Youre under COURT ORDER so you find a way or get in trouble.
Now how fast you get in trouble can vary on different things.
-----
In my own situation, Ex doesnt work, hes on SSI/SSDI and isnt involved. Child Support doesnt care. They dont care that im a stay at home mom and my husband makes the most income. They dont care. As long as $120 a month is paid, they dont care. I could break my leg tomorrow and need to hobble to the title loan place to get money...they dont care.
**ftr since ill be chewed out, i do work, i nanny and it does help offset my husbands income to help pay for my support. The POINT was that its easier if you work 9-5 Mon-Fri but they dont have time or care about your excuses. Find a way and pay!
MightyQueen said no such thing and you know it. You're just itching for a fight.
When a child/children lives the majority of the time with one parent, that parent is supporting the child because they are paying rent, utilities, groceries, school supplies, clothes, transportation, and all the little things that come up that kids need. THAT IS THE SUPPORT. They don't need to pay support to the other parent.
And a parent will not be thrown in jail and have their license suspended if they don't pay for two weeks; you and I both know that's a flat out lie. My ex didn't pay CS for 18 months and nothing happened to him except that now he has to pay a little extra to pay the arrearage. I'm sure a dozen other custodial mothers on this board could share similar stories.
In your made up scenario, Parent A is a deadbeat mom that you want to yell about on this board because the courts treat women differently, right? And this has apparently become a rampant problem in society, correct? Or you think custodial parents should be paying child support also for some reason, right? Am I getting your wavelength?
What you are doing is describing the process by which many custodial parents financially support their children. That doesn't mean that the court requires it. This can easily be proven:
If the custodial parent has no job, or loses their job, and ends up with zero income, does the court participate in enforcing the custodial parents financial support of the child(ren)? Will the court suspend the drivers license and/or jail the custodial parent if they have zero income? It should go without saying that anyone that has zero income can't possibly be financially supporting their children.
The court will not enforce financial support for the custodial parent; therefore I must conclude that the court doesn't really care about financial support for children.
In Ohio, if you dont pay your support, they DO suspend your license. Then you have a court date and are given 30d to pay up to date, if you do not, you go to jail. Plus its taken from your taxes if you file.
They DONT CARE if you dont have a job ( they even have silly programs to "help" you) or no income. Youre under COURT ORDER so you find a way or get in trouble.
Now how fast you get in trouble can vary on different things.
-----
In my own situation, Ex doesnt work, hes on SSI/SSDI and isnt involved. Child Support doesnt care. They dont care that im a stay at home mom and my husband makes the most income. They dont care. As long as $120 a month is paid, they dont care. I could break my leg tomorrow and need to hobble to the title loan place to get money...they dont care.
**ftr since ill be chewed out, i do work, i nanny and it does help offset my husbands income to help pay for my support. The POINT was that its easier if you work 9-5 Mon-Fri but they dont have time or care about your excuses. Find a way and pay!
Again, if the court cares about financial support of the children, why don't they require custodial parents to financially support their children?
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).
Yes.
Let's say you were beating them or doing drugs and being/driving drunk with the kids.
No kid time for you, but you're still on the hook to pay for their existence.
Again, if the court cares about financial support of the children, why don't they require custodial parents to financially support their children?
They often do.
Plus they do the actual hard work of dealing with them every day, carting them around, feeding them, taking care of them when they're sick, etc.
Again, if the court cares about financial support of the children, why don't they require custodial parents to financially support their children?
they do.
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.
