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 does that mean to you? In what way is a Mom or Dad who has their kids living with them NOT financially support them? And by what reason does it NOT make sense for the parents to support their kids according to their means?
Don't get me wrong, the historical pendulum of justice had swung way too far in the direction of reaming men in family courts. But the pendulum is swinging back now. This is a good thing though it could be helped in the more "traditional family values" states. North Carolina, from what I understand, is evil to men in family court.
I know this is not directed at me but I would like to answer what it means to me from experience in my family and what I see.
As someone stated the courts assign CS based on your earning ability, not what you actually bring home.
At the time of divorce mom was making very little because of two small kids. Then she was making nothing as she remarried then divorced. She was then eligible for food stamps, medical, section 8 housing, child care vouchers and an array of other services while working also. Dad was assigned CS on what he had made but lost job, got another making less, laid off, worked seasonal due to recession not lack of trying. So Dad was assessed X$ a month even though he only brought home y$ a month thus could not make full payments. Go to jail directly to jail. Another loss job and month of no income. Rinse repeat and head down the worm hole. While it was ok mom was only making z$ or X$ and was eligible for all those services because she had custodial custody.
The problem is CS is not assessed on actual means but what the decide you should be making, if you are the non custodial parent. Child support could only be modified every 6 months and cost you money to do so.
Thankfully things are becoming more fair but not fast enough.
If financial support for a child that approximates 25-40% of Dad's gross income is so important, why are those in authority perfectly ok with Mom providing 0 financial support to their child?
What mom provides 0 financial support?
The dad's contribution covers only part of the cost of raising a child.
The non custodial parent must remain very proactive. The problem is being proactive cost money and time. Child support attorneys work for the custodial parent at no cost but non custodial parents have to pay for their own attorney. Most people do not know how to maneuver through the courts and many cant afford constant attorney fees.
My son had a 50/50 arrangement but then his ex moved out of the county when the oldest started school. There was no way he could hold up the agreement with the school being 40 miles away and he couldn't afford an attorney so he ended up paying support and only seeing the kids on the weekend.
His mistake was he did not fight the courts. I have two male cousins who did fight and forced their exes to stay put and keep the children in the school district.
I've never heard of that. The only time that a custodial parent doesn't have to pay for their own attorney is if they are on welfare in which case the county will send their own attorney, but the attorney doesn't represent the parent but rather the county welfare department, welfare gets all of the child support minus a small offset which goes to the parent, usually $50-$100.
My first wife ran off with another guy. Divorced me and got support. For the next 16 years I fought constantly to see them. I don't drink, don't use drugs. She never claimed I did anything wrong. Just never followed court orders and the court would not enforce it. Pretty common.
My first wife ran off with another guy. Divorced me and got support. For the next 16 years I fought constantly to see them. I don't drink, don't use drugs. She never claimed I did anything wrong. Just never followed court orders and the court would not enforce it. Pretty common.
Cheating should be an at fault divorce and the person cheated on should get first right of refusal on primary custody of the children. Obviously there can be extenuating circumstances but that should be the default position.
I've never heard of that. The only time that a custodial parent doesn't have to pay for their own attorney is if they are on welfare in which case the county will send their own attorney, but the attorney doesn't represent the parent but rather the county welfare department, welfare gets all of the child support minus a small offset which goes to the parent, usually $50-$100.
I recently got involved with child support services. I was told specifically their job was to collect CS and true technically they dont represent me personally. Their lawyers take care of all the legalities, writing up the complaint, serving the summons, filing the paperwork, pleading the case. At no cost to me. I am not on welfare. I can hire my own attorney but I dont have to as CS will prosecute for CS at no cost to me in order for me to get CS as opposed to paying 2500 for an attorney.
You may not of heard of it but I am going thru it right now.
The dad's contribution covers only part of the cost of raising a child.
The ones whose financial contribution is welfare.
I am all for both parents contributing to the financial support of their children based on actual income as well as physical support but I see many cases where the custodial parent doesn't work or hardly works and receives all sorts of monetary benefits while the non custodial parent is punished if he/she doesn't pay an predetermined X amount of dollars. If mom makes 100/week and dad makes 100/week, dad shouldn't have to pay 75$ a week in CS while mom keeps her 100 + gets food, housing, medical and child care subsidies. If dad pays 75 mom should also be accountable for 75. If mom and dad were still together the powers that be would not jail dad because he couldn't provide beyond his means.
The child support system as administered does seem to be unfair. It should be evenly balanced, but it clearly isn't. If the mother makes $60,000/year and the father makes $40,000, then the mother should contribute 60% of the child's support. I alos think it;s unfair that a parent should have to continue paying support when unemployed, if through no fault of his or her own and the other parent is employed.
Rulkes are easy in practice, but then people come along and game the system.
Here's what happens though, the 40% of the child support that comes out of lower income earner making $40K could very well drop them below the poverty level. Those paying child support get ZERO breaks or help in that case because their gross income is above the levels where they would qualify for any assisted housing, food stamps, etc.
Here's what happens though, the 40% of the child support that comes out of lower income earner making $40K could very well drop them below the poverty level. Those paying child support get ZERO breaks or help in that case because their gross income is above the levels where they would qualify for any assisted housing, food stamps, etc.
They have it set up now for food stamps where the child support paid is factored into things. You have to show proof you paid it though.
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.
