Child support amounts are out of control

[Edward The Head]

I'm going to say upfront before anyone suggests that I don't want to pay my share of the child support, I do, but I think you'll see my my own example it makes life impossible for me.

That said a quick background. My wife left me a few months ago. She took our two children, 4 and 2, with her. I see them a few times a week and have them every other weekend. The examples I'm using are mine, though I've changed the numbers a bit to make them easier to work with.

I live in Montgomery county, MD, which is just outside of DC. I own a townhouse with a monthly payment of $1600. Both my wife and I make 100k a year and we have one child in day care which is $20000 a year and the oldest is in preschool which is $18000 a year.

Currently I get paid $2050 every two weeks, with $250 going to my 401k. The rest of my gross pay goes to taxes and insurance. I'm still listed as married with the kids as dependents which means soon my taxes will go up.

Now comes the child support part. My wife has not gone to court yet, my lawyer and I are still waiting for her lawyer to do the paperwork. However there is a formula that the state uses that one really can't deviate from. My support will be $2300* a month, which is over half of my net pay and will leave me with about $2150 a month to live off of. After taking out my mortgage I'll be left with about $550 a month, which doesn't include any type of utilities or gas or even food.

Now of course you can tell me to move but rent in this area is $13-1400 a month for two rooms, or I could find a one room place for $1100. I could find a place with roommates for $8-900, but then that leaves no place for my children to stay. I could also get a roommate, but that would also leave no place for my children to stay.

After talking to my lawyer she has said there's not much that can be done about it and that judges don't like to deviate from what the program says.

I feel that these numbers are way out of whack. There's no way that anyone should have to pay half of what they make in a month for child support, especially when the woman actually makes more. No loan officer would give you a loan for 50% of what you make.

There is no way I can live off of $550 a month and actually be able to do anything with my kids. I don't have TV, Netflix, or any other non-necessity now except internet which I've cut back. I was told, by my lawyer no less, to sell my house, take any equity, move into a smaller place, and use the equity to pay for child support. I'm also supposed to not save as much, which right now is what they match, for retirement. So basically I'm supposed to drive myself to the poor house and not be able to retire with anything.

Again I know that the children need to be supported, but it seems to me that the law makers didn't think it through fully. It seems that they bleed the payer dry and unable to have a life. I think there needs to be some more thought put into the system.

*The law here in Maryland is set to change 1 October. Before then payments would be $1650. Both amounts include child care, but not the preschool which has been paid for. And again I used my numbers, but rounded a bit so no nit picking on exact numbers that might be off by $25 or so.

[godix]

By your own numbers, just schooling/childcare is 38,000 a year. At 2300 month, you'll be paying 27,600 of that. Which leaves the mother to cover the other 10k schooling/care as well as all food, clothing, medical, and other expenses for the children. While I can understand and sympathize with your financial situation, the numbers given don't sound like you're being hugely taken advantage of.

As for the townhouse, perhaps it's a bit unreasonable to expect that what could be afforded before is still affordable when the household income is cut in half.

Like I said, I do sympathize. You're in a tough situation. However, you said your wife makes about the same as you do. So she has the same economics facing her as well. She most likely can't shoulder more of the costs for the same reason you can't. You'll have to make sacrifices for your childrens sake.

[Sateryn76]

Looks like you're going to have to sell the house and get a one bedroom. That's $500 right there. So, you'll have $1150 a month, which is quite a bit of money for one guy with part-time kids.

[filmore]

That said a quick background. My wife left me a few months ago. She took our two children, 4 and 2, with her. I see them a few times a week and have them every other weekend. The examples I'm using are mine, though I've changed the numbers a bit to make them easier to work with.

Is there a reason your wife has custody of the kids? At a minimum you should fight for 50% custody. Would you still have CS in that case?

[Dogzilla]

Hmmm... you're in the DC area? Can you move to Virginia and file there? Are the laws any different?

Other than that, yes that sounds like a lot, but plenty of people live on $550 a month after rent. In fact for many of us, that would be a step up. I dunno. It seems weird to me that a judge would award the other parent basically 50% of your income when the other parent also has her own education/income. I wouldn't think it was high if she'd been a SAHM throughout the marriage and had no education and no work experience or job skills that would enable her to support the children and maintain her standard of living.

[Bryan Ekers]

$38000 a year for pre-school/daycare? Can't you hire a live-in tutor for less than that?

[Desert Nomad]

You say you earn 100k/yr but only get $2050 every two weeks? Something does not add up.

[Algher]

You say you earn 100k/yr but only get $2050 every two weeks? Something does not add up.

Depends on how much he takes out for his 401k and his health plan if he is covering both kids and the wife (paying for the whole family). He also might have a flexible spending plan running as well to bring it down. Finally, he might be over-with holding for taxes.

[Sateryn76]

$38000 a year for pre-school/daycare? Can't you hire a live-in tutor for less than that?

I wonder about that number as well. :confused:

[Edward The Head]

By your own numbers, just schooling/childcare is 38,000 a year. At 2300 month, you'll be paying 27,600 of that.

No, it's $19000 for child care, the preschool is already paid for. It will not be paid for again as she can go to public school next year.

Any way I make less then 100k, but I went up to make the numbers easier. There's also insurance for the whole family and my retirement. However, you have to remember there's State taxes, county taxes and city taxes. We get back $2000 a year give or take, of which half would be mine if you want to go that way.

Dogzilla, you can live off of $550 a month after rent? How do you pay electric, which averages around $100 a month for me, water, HOA, car insurance etc. We have to do a worksheet here and with nothing else I'm in the hole by a couple of hundred every month.

However I don't just want to talk about me, that's what they pit is for. I've heard that this is common in this area. I don't think that law makers take into account the cost of living in different areas. As I've said I've been told what some judges will say, sell your house, use the equity for child support, no more retirement right now. It sounds insane that you can bankrupt the payer almost totally.

[Ludovic]

I agree that child support amounts are out of control , but will your taxes go down once your status is single? I'm not a tax accountant, but isn't this one of the cases where there is a "marriage penalty", when there are two partners with a relatively high income, the combination of which puts them in a huge tax bracket?

[Edward The Head]

$38000 a year for pre-school/daycare? Can't you hire a live-in tutor for less than that?

I wonder about that number as well. :confused:

It's $1512 a month for daycare, which is $18144 a year, school is just over $18000 a year, plus they have off a couple of weeks a year and she has to go somewhere. And no you couldn't hire someone to watch for that much as the minimum wage in this area I think is $10 a hour. But no one will watch two children and teach them, for that kind of money.

This is the cost of living in the DC area.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Here's the core of the problem:

How many people are more likely to vote for a politician who votes to cut back child support versus how many people are more likely to vote for one who votes to increase it? "Think of the children!!!"

Good luck.

[Bryan Ekers]

Unless that preschool has Intro to Neurosurgery on its curriculum, $18k sounds pretty absurd.

[Dogzilla]

Dogzilla, you can live off of $550 a month after rent? How do you pay electric, which averages around $100 a month for me, water, HOA, car insurance etc. We have to do a worksheet here and with nothing else I'm in the hole by a couple of hundred every month.


:: sheepish ::

Well, not in the DC area, I couldn't. I'm in different circumstances now, but maybe 10 years ago, that was probably about the amount I had for utilities (in this city, electric, trash, gas, water, sewer is all on the same bill) food, gas, insurances (car, renter's), booze/play, cable/internet, etc. I live in North Florida. It's relatively cheap here. I'm from Ohio, where I could live on $550 a month after rent easily (especially in my hometown). The closer you are to the epicenter of a huge thriving metropolis, the higher the costs of living are going to be.

However, moving to a rural small town isn't necessarily the answer either because then the commuting costs outweigh the savings in other costs.

I'm just saying. Here we have an OP who makes 100K(ish) a year and he's complaining about how little money he'll have after his kids high-end spendy private schools and his McMansion and the his and hers SUVs are split up. (Okay, you didn't exactly say all that, but y'all are not living in a trailer park on minimum wage working 75 hours a week either.) People make it on that or less. That's all I'm saying. Most people who have to work at McDonald's do not send their children to schools that cost nearly $40K a year. That just sounds like crazy talk to me.

Not possible to relocate and file in Virginia? Do the judges consider actual cost of living in Virginia, unlike MD?

[kanicbird]

The system is broken because the basic unit of humanity has broken down, that of family, you are just experiencing the harsh aftermath of that disaster. Like a survivor of any catastrophe there is a harsh period of survival till one gets on their way again and can rebuild.

Realize that you are being discouraged and put down emotionally and see very little options right now, but there is a way to overcome, and you have a choice of how to rebuild and learn from why your relationship failed to prevent repeating it.

Realizing there is a way for you to overcome is a big step, and a leap of faith, but what do you have to lose, because if there is no way then it doesn't matter.

I believe there is a way to overcome all injustices of the state and others including out of control child support payments, transcend it, that is the way of Love.

I'd suggest watching 'The Colony' for this season and listen to the 'expert's advice' on the radical change of lifestyle. Also a theme from the survivor shows, "just keep trying different things, see what works, what doesn't, just don't be afraid to try, and don't get stuck trying things that may have worked at one time, move on"

Good luck!

[FourPaws]

They are not perfect, but then again, nothing really ever is. I should be receiving it, but am currently not.

There is one key factor you've over looked, as well as a lesser one.

Key factor - she doesn't have to claim the CS as income, whereas he has to pay taxes on all his income - she's basically getting that amount tax-free.

Lesser factor - if the children are living with her, then she will get to deduct them, whereas he won't - unless they have an agreement where it trades off from year to year or each parent claims one child.

There's a lot of things to consider.

[Strassia]

First, the obvious way out of paying child support is to man up and fight for custody of your kids. Then let her pay child support.

That aside, the way to see if you are being asked to pay to much in child support is to figure out how much of your joint income was going to support the kids before. Add up the costs of preschool/daycare, food, clothes, insurance (which you should no longer be paying directly post divorce) saving for college, vacations, toys, gifts, haircuts, etc. Now add to that half of what you were paying for housing and see where you are at. If it is close to what you are being asked to pay in child support, then it is accurate.

Child support sucks because too many non custodial parents try to short change their kids. It is set assuming that the only money you will give them is what you are ordered by a court. That sucks and is unfair to most, but it is to protect the interests of the kids.

The fact is that keeping two households is more expensive than one. Usually it is the custodial parent who ends up taking it in the shorts and having to downgrade life style. But simple math means at least one of you, and most likely both of you will now have less disposable income. That's just one of the drawbacks of divorce.

[Edward The Head]

I'm just saying. Here we have an OP who makes 100K(ish) a year and he's complaining about how little money he'll have after his kids high-end spendy private schools and his McMansion and the his and hers SUVs are split up. (Okay, you didn't exactly say all that, but y'all are not living in a trailer park on minimum wage working 75 hours a week either.) People make it on that or less. That's all I'm saying. Most people who have to work at McDonald's do not send their children to schools that cost nearly $40K a year. That just sounds like crazy talk to me.


And this is why when people hear how much people can make they make assumptions. I live in a 1400 square foot townhouse, at least I think it's that big. No where near a McMansion. My SUV cost $17000. As for the schooling, day care and school cost almost exactly the same, if my wife wanted to work, which she did, the kids had to go somewhere. The cheapest place for kids is around $300 per week per child, that comes out to just over $31000 a year.

I can make a comparison since the job I do is also done in Oklahoma City. Because I'm a fed the pay is the same. In order for me to make what they make there I would have to make an extra $40000 more then I do now. The cost of living difference is massive, even in the state it's a huge difference.

And no I don't think that moving to Virginia would help, even if it was less the judges know why I would be moving and wouldn't allow it.

[malkavia]

Do you think they'd be willing to factor in the healthcare premium you pay for your family as part of the monthly support payment? If not, I would likely ask that the wife move the kids (and herself, of course) to her insurance, which should free up some additional living money for yourself.

Additionally, if your wife is willing to be reasonable about the amount of support expected from you, she may be willing to do what my ex's parents did with their kids. The mom was ordered to pay X amount of support, but truly could only afford half that. So the dad accepted the support check (through the courts, so it's recorded) and gave the mom half of it back.

Granted, you'd need a pretty amicable divorce to make that work AND if she decided to stop doing it, you have no recourse.

[Der Trihs]

First, the obvious way out of paying child support is to man up and fight for custody of your kids. Then let her pay child support.The courts are notoriously unwilling to give custody to the father, that seems unlikely to work.

[Hakuna Matata]

Maybe I am misreading your OP but do BOTH you and your ex make $100k a year, or just you? Because here in Washington State both incomes are used to determine child support and it is pro-rated depending upon your income. So if you both are making $100k a year, it would seem you both would pay equal amounts of child support. In your case paying that amount to your ex with her supplying the other half. So if you made 70k and she made 30k, then you would contribue 70% of the total and she would contribute 30%. Doesn't it work that way in Maryland?

If only 'you' have the income then it will fall more on your shoulders. However if you will be paying alimony to you ex, that would be considered income for her and her percentage would take that income into account.

[Strassia]

First, the obvious way out of paying child support is to man up and fight for custody of your kids. Then let her pay child support.The courts are notoriously unwilling to give custody to the father, that seems unlikely to work.

True, although less true than it used to be. I would also say that if your primary reason for seeking custody is to avoid paying child support, you probably shouldn't get custody.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

That sounds like the exact oppposite of what you said earlier.

[Mr Smashy]

Alas, the genesis of the song, "It's Cheaper to Keep Her (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/blues+brothers/cheaper+to+keep+her_20020761.html)"

Based on your post I'm doubting that's an option, sorry. FWIW, my brother went through the same thing (in MD also, up in FredNeck). You are right, there's a formula and they had to make a really good case to deviate from it (which they did, btw - I had to testify in some lawyer's office how much he spends on his kid's hockey gear and other stuff. Of course, he had a guilty conscience wife who basically was responsble for the split, so she went along. YMMV)

[TruCelt]

While I realize that it often seems unfair to the non-custodial parent; every custodial parent I know give 98 - 100% of their income for the care of the kids. Yes, they happen also to live in the house they provide for the children, but most of us would gladly live cheaper if we could. None of us in a recent gathering (maybe 11 of us?) had any money at all going toward retirement. It's just not feasible.

You have the luxury of knowing exactly how much money you will have to give to the care of the children each month. We have to come up with whatever is necessary, whenever it's necessary, and do the vast majority of the work, which is no small amount. You sound like you do more than most, and good on you for it. But seriously, it's nothing at all compared to the sacrifices that a single custodial parent makes.

You will definietly be in an untenable situation

[Chronos]

However I don't just want to talk about me, that's what they pit is for. I've heard that this is common in this area. I don't think that law makers take into account the cost of living in different areas.Shouldn't be an issue, if you and the mother both live in the same area (or in areas with the same cost of living). If the cost of living in your area is high, then that also means that it takes more money to support the kids, so you should be paying more because of that.

[Strassia]

That sounds like the exact oppposite of what you said earlier.

If you are talking to me, I was not trying to say he should seek custody to get out of child support. I was trying to say that he should do the right thing and seek custody. I would have felt a lot more sympathy if he had been complaining about not getting custody as well as the child support, but him seeking custody was never mentioned in the OP or his responses to date. The typical laments you here in a divorce are very gender divided. She complains about raising the kids on her own and fighting to get the kids their support. He complains about how much the courts/state/lawyers are sucking out of him.

I don't know Edward or his situation. All I know is what he posted here. It looks like both parents work jobs of similar levels (she even makes more), yet he never mentions joint custody, much less full physical custody.

Look, I am happily married, but financially I am in a very similar situation to Edward, pre-divorce. I live on the other coast (San Fran peninsula), but my wife and I make about the same, pay about the same for child care (less this year due to part time help from Grandma, but we will pay even more next year with both in pre-school), and we even live in similar townhouse (1600 sq feet, thankfully, but that cost us $775k three years ago).

I hope to go happily senile with my wife, but if the worst happens I would be fighting for my kids from the get go. And I know that both of us would have to struggle to live at the same level we had before the divorce.

[Dogzilla]

.

And no I don't think that moving to Virginia would help, even if it was less the judges know why I would be moving and wouldn't allow it.

Sorry about the extrapolations I made. Totally unfair. I know the cost of living in the DC area is completely out of hand.

I just wonder about this last bit: are you sure about that? Did your lawyer advise you that staying in MD would be more beneficial?

In fact... what has your attorney said about all this?

[black rabbit]

That sounds like the exact oppposite of what you said earlier.

If you are talking to me, I was not trying to say he should seek custody to get out of child support. I was trying to say that he should do the right thing and seek custody. I would have felt a lot more sympathy if he had been complaining about not getting custody as well as the child support, but him seeking custody was never mentioned in the OP or his responses to date.

Exactly. I see zero mention of any kind of intent to pursue a shared parenting agreement, which, given the relative equality of incomes, would likely result in a minimal ordered support amount, if she didn't end up paying you to pick up half the cost of health insurance.

[aruvqan]

$38000 a year for pre-school/daycare? Can't you hire a live-in tutor for less than that?

Dude, the sprog will be 5 next year and kindergarden age, Public school, screw the private school. Ex wants the sprog in private school, she can pay it herself.

[Edward The Head]

Do you think they'd be willing to factor in the healthcare premium you pay for your family as part of the monthly support payment?

The health care is taken out of the support already, so if they moved I would pay more.

We also have joint custody, the children spend the majority of the nights with her, which is how the courts calculate costs. It's not feasible for me to keep them at this time over night. I have the children twice a week and every other weekend so I see and do a lot with the children, it's the nights that are what count.

Yes, both my wife and I make basically the same amount of money, her more actually with a bonus.

In any case I didn't want this to be all about me, I used me because I had the numbers. I fail to see how anyone, male or female, can live just like they do now with half of what they make gone.

Again I'm not complaining about paying support, I've already set up my paycheck to do it, what I'm worried about is that the percentage is just way too high. I think they need to review everything, cost of living in your area, salary and things like that, not just plug it into a formula and say it works for them it'll work for you.

[Edward The Head]

Dude, the sprog will be 5 next year and kindergarden age, Public school, screw the private school. Ex wants the sprog in private school, she can pay it herself.

She will be going to school next year, as I said that part is paid for. And just for the record the other party can do some things and say I'd have to pay on top of what's paid. Like today, tuition went up by $800 a year because she wants to drop her off early. Well I have to pay half of that even though it doesn't do anything for me and it was all her choice.

[ralph124c]

Think its bad now?
Wait till she gets a "live in" boyfriend. He will (no doubt) contibute to her upkeep-but this income makes no difference in what YOU have to pay.
You will soon be supporting 4 people, not three!:mad:

[Strassia]

Do you think they'd be willing to factor in the healthcare premium you pay for your family as part of the monthly support payment?

The health care is taken out of the support already, so if they moved I would pay more.

We also have joint custody, the children spend the majority of the nights with her, which is how the courts calculate costs. It's not feasible for me to keep them at this time over night. I have the children twice a week and every other weekend so I see and do a lot with the children, it's the nights that are what count.
It is good that you have joint custody, although that does make things harder financially. Basically what you and your wife have done is taken a big chunk of your expenses (housing and utilities) and doubled them. Just looking at my situation, which is similar to what yours used to be, if we did that we would both have to stop all savings for retirement and college and start draining our savings to survive if we did that.

Yes, both my wife and I make basically the same amount of money, her more actually with a bonus.

In any case I didn't want this to be all about me, I used me because I had the numbers. I fail to see how anyone, male or female, can live just like they do now with half of what they make gone.

Again I'm not complaining about paying support, I've already set up my paycheck to do it, what I'm worried about is that the percentage is just way too high. I think they need to review everything, cost of living in your area, salary and things like that, not just plug it into a formula and say it works for them it'll work for you.

Are you saying they don't take any of that into account now? I can see it being relevant in cases where the parents cost of living are significantly different, but not as big a factor if you are living in the same general area.



Dude, the sprog will be 5 next year and kindergarden age, Public school, screw the private school. Ex wants the sprog in private school, she can pay it herself.

She will be going to school next year, as I said that part is paid for. And just for the record the other party can do some things and say I'd have to pay on top of what's paid. Like today, tuition went up by $800 a year because she wants to drop her off early. Well I have to pay half of that even though it doesn't do anything for me and it was all her choice.

Are you going to be dropping off or picking up your kids on the days they don't stay with you? Since your wife works, I would assume she needs to drop off earlier, pick up later, or cut her work hours.


Bottom line, we really don't have enough data to say if your payments are correct. If you sum up all expenditures, more will be spent at her place than yours because the kids are there. Unless you were both living way below your means before this, your lifestyle would have taken a hit even without the kids.

The unfair part is that the courts have to assume that you will only pay what you are ordered to. Which puts you in the position of resenting buy things for your kids spontaneously. I imagine it sucks a lot, although I am sure it is not the worst part of your current situation. I don't wish divorce on anyone.

[begbert2]

My brother pays child supprt. The mother is married and doesn't work to any noticeable degree. Her husband's income doesn't count. So she's 'technically' broke, leaving my brother to have to pay a lion's share. And when the mother and her husband's twins are born, their upkeep will be taken out of the mother's (nonexistent) pay, raising the amount my brother will have to pay because it is assumed that a chunk of the mother's attests that is currently assessed as contributing to my brother's kid will instead go to the twins, requiring my brother to pay even more to make up the difference. All completely ignoring that there's actually a husband there covering all this with the largest income of the group.

As a result of all this, my brother can't afford a place of his own, and has to live with my parents. It's criminal, literally, in my opinion, aside from the minor quibble that it's the law.

[Edward The Head]

Are you saying they don't take any of that into account now? I can see it being relevant in cases where the parents cost of living are significantly different, but not as big a factor if you are living in the same general area.



No, the State formula applies no matter where in the state you live. There are parts on the eastern shore and in the west of the state it is possible to make the same money, but property there is much much cheaper. Day care is also much cheaper in other places. So while we do live in the same place, if I lived way out there and made the same I could live a lot better as rent could be had for $500 a month. That's pretty much my point, I can live here, someone else lives there, make the same money, they will be able to live, I can't. And no moving 2-3 hours away is not possible.

The differences in cost of living, just within the state are huge. I think it's wrong to just go with the average and not look at other things. I don't believe that it costs that much to raise children. We were able to pay the $36K+ for just child care and still have money to save and go on vacations. Now, even though we pay twice as much, one person can't do anything. I can not speak for her as I don't know her situation, but out of her pay check we had a few thousand a month to spend. Now I'll most likely be in debt.

[CrazyCatLady]

We were able to pay the $36K+ for just child care and still have money to save and go on vacations. Now, even though we pay twice as much, one person can't do anything.

How much, exactly, were you saving and spending on vacation? Because it's costing you almost $2000 a month to live on your own--$1400 just for rent, before you ever turn on a light switch, take a shower, or eat a bite, much less furnish your own place. I mean, damn, I don't know many people who could throw an extra 2 grand a month at something and not have to make some cuts somewhere.

[CaveMike]

The mother is married and doesn't work to any noticeable degree. Her husband's income doesn't count. So she's 'technically' broke, leaving my brother to have to pay a lion's share.Consider the opposite case: If your brother's ex was still single, but your brother was remarried -- should his wife's income count towards calculating his contribution?

[Green Cymbeline]

First, the obvious way out of paying child support is to man up and fight for custody of your kids. Then let her pay child support.This.

At least fight for 50% physical custody. You said it wasn't feasible for the girls to stay with you overnight. Well you really need to make it feasible. It is very important that you fight for this now at the beginning, and not later on. It's harder to change the living situation the more time goes by.

I feel your pain. My boyfriend is in a very similar situation, which I have written about here before. The system is undeniably set up in favor of the mother. Like you, my BF is paying over 50% of his earnings to his ex-wife.

The difference in his case is that his ex is unemployed, so he has to pay a higher amount. It's strange that in your case you are having to pay such a high amount when your ex is employed and making the same amount as you.

Please talk to your attorney and get this resolved. Do you want to live poor for the next 15 years? You don't have to. It will be a fight, and yes you may lose due to the biased system, but don't give up!

[Green Cymbeline]

Here are some good resources on father's rights:

http://ancpr.com/ Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights

http://www.acfc.org American Coalition for Fathers and Children

http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/ The Fatherhood Coalition

http://www.dadsdivorce.com/ DadsDivorce.com

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/ Fathers and Families

http://www.fathersrights.org/ Fathers Rights Foundation/Fathers And Dads For Equal Custody Rights

http://www.fathersrightsinc.com/ Father's Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers%27_rights_movement Wikipedia - Father's rights movement

http://forum.freeadvice.com/family-law-57/ Family Law Forums

http://GlennSacks.com Glenn Sacks - a men's and fathers' issues columnist, radio commentator, and blogger

http://www.fathers4kids.com/html/Home.htm National Fathers Resource Center

http://deltabravo.net/forum/ SPARC, the Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center Forum

http://www.winningcustody.com/ Winning Custody - A Father's Guide on How to Win

[sisu]

Think its bad now?
Wait till she gets a "live in" boyfriend. He will (no doubt) contibute to her upkeep-but this income makes no difference in what YOU have to pay.
You will soon be supporting 4 people, not three!:mad:

WTF, I married a woman with two kids and I can tell you I pay a fucking lot more than the biological father will ever pay. The biological father should always pay his fair share support.

Now fair is a difficult concept for those who are angry at their ex's.

[bookbabe]

I think that this is less a case of Child Support Run Amuck! and more a case of Childcare Is Godawful Expensive in Montgomery County Maryland!

From strictly running the numbers it costs more than $3000 a month for the total childcare cost. The State of Maryland has determined that it costs about $800 something a month per child for basic living expenses. So for two children it would be $1600 a month. This would make the total cost $4600 a month and when you divide it in half between two parents, you get $2300.00, just like your attorney advised you.

That's just an estimate, mind you, I know that the are healthcare insurance costs in there as well and may be other costs as well.

On the plus side, once your children are in regular school, your child support should drop significantly.

[Muffin]

Again I'm not complaining about paying support, I've already set up my paycheck to do it, what I'm worried about is that the percentage is just way too high. I think they need to review everything, cost of living in your area, salary and things like that, not just plug it into a formula and say it works for them it'll work for you.Up where I am (Kanukistan), we have a formula. When support payors freak, I sit down with them and go through the actual expenses of child rearing for their family's particular circumstances. Most often, it comes out that the table figures are the same or less than the actual figures, which helps the support payors swallow a very bitter pill.

I don't have and stats handy, but I have come across stats that indicate that although the standard of living of both parties decreases after separation, the standard of living of the support recipient drops more than the standard of living than the support payor. When one party or the other drops below the poverty line after separation, it is most often the party with custody of the children It really just comes down to both parties having to tighten their belts because there are now two homes to maintain rather than one, and raising children is very expensive.

One aspect that sometimes is unbalanced is when the children spend a lot of time at both parties' residences, but not enough time at the secondary residence to trigger support flowing both ways. The support tables up here were based on a primary residence being supported, with the children only having occasional and short stays at the support payor's residence (e.g. every other weekend and an evening or overnight during the week). What they do not take into consideration is that often the support payor has the children for longer periods, and therefore requires a home suitable for the children rather than a bachelor pad.

[TruCelt]

It's not feasible for me to keep them at this time over night. I have the children twice a week and every other weekend so I see and do a lot with the children, it's the nights that are what count.


So even on the weekend visits they don't spend the night? This sounds like you haven't made a space in your house for your children. Is that correct?

[Ca3799]

In my state, child support is set at 25% for the first child and 5% for each additional child.

It seems that staying married costs about 100%.

[TruCelt]

. . . It seems that staying married costs about 100%.

As does the title of custodial parent.


I'm not saying there are no exceptions, we've heard examples on this very board of parents who use child support for their own luxuries instead of for the child. Worse, yet, some use it to support thier own addictions.

But a custodial parent can never say "Sorry, no Doctor's visit for you, I've already given my x% for your welfare this month."

[Notchimine]

Since it isn't "feasible" for you to raise your kids half the time, then essentially, you're paying for the ex to do so. If you want to step up and have your kids exactly half the time, then you would both be paying for the children as you had them and no other money would need to exchange hands. The formula seems to be against you only because you don't want the inconvenience of being a parent and would rather have your kids visit you.

[Lightnin']

The formula seems to be against you only because you don't want the inconvenience of being a parent and would rather have your kids visit you.

I was wondering how long it would take to get to the "blame the OP" stage.

[Martin Hyde]

It seems like child raising costs are out of control.

Using an inflation calculator the $20,000/year for day care would have cost my parents when I was that age around $2,643. The $18,000 for pre school would have cost them $2,379.

Yeah, my parents never would have paid that.

I also find it unlikely that a $200,000 household income is "average" for the D.C. area. Considering I don't live all that far from the DC area, and given the numbers I've seen (19% of DC area residents are under the poverty line, median individual income of $56,000) I think we're in a situation where your moderate affluence has lead you to dramatically expand your costs beyond that which most people of lesser means would see.

I can certainly bet you that the 19% of DC area residents who live below the poverty line aren't sending their kids to $20k/year day care or $18k/ year private preschools.

I understand that $200k household income actually "doesn't go that far" in DC, but I go up to DC a lot and there is a lot of extreme poverty in the DC area. The problem seems to be that you and your wife both were living a lifestyle that just wasn't really that wise at your income level.

It's unfortunate that people's extended families have mostly deteriorated as a strength. When I was a kid I lived close to two sets of living grand parents, and both of my parents were children of large families. My father had 5 siblings and my mother had four siblings. Additionally there were many friends in the community. My mother didn't work outside of the home so obviously the issue of day care or preschool never presented itself. However my mother was often watching her sister's kids or a neighbor's kids. Sometimes I'd be taken to an aunt or a grandparent or a neighbor's house. No one sent their kid to paid-daycare or paid preschool back then.

However, I understand that these days people grow up and move away from their roots and set up shop in totally different regions. I also understand most neighborhoods no longer have any sense of community whatsoever. Unfortunately that has direct economic consequences in this case.

Maybe that is part of the reason those 19% of impoverished DC area residents are able to survive with kids. I'm betting a lot of them are from the DC area and probably have extensive familial networks helping them out.

I can also say that when I was a kid I shared a room with two siblings and it was a small room. There was a bunk bed on one wall and a single on the other wall. There was one dresser in between the beds at the back wall that held all three of our clothes in addition to a single small closet. The space in between the beds was narrow enough that only one person at a time could easily walk through it.

My parents bedroom fit a queen bed with a wardrobe, my dad's dresser, and a decent sized closet but it was still relatively small.

Of course, we spent virtually no time in our room. Bedrooms were for sleeping in, and nothing else.

[Notchimine]

The formula seems to be against you only because you don't want the inconvenience of being a parent and would rather have your kids visit you.

I was wondering how long it would take to get to the "blame the OP" stage.

It isn't about "blame". The reality is that child support is determined by the amount of time each parent has the child. If the OP doesn't want to put in the time to parent, then he has to pay someone else to do it. His financial liability is in direct proportion to his choices regarding the time put in raising his children.

If he parents his children half the time then the financial decisions as to what to spend the money on belongs directly to him and not to the other parent. He isn't a victim, he is making a choice and doesn't particularly care for the results of that choice.

[rogerbox]

I was wondering how long it would take to get to the "blame the OP" stage.

It isn't about "blame".

I don't believe there is enough information from this thread to glean that he "doesn't want the inconvenience of being a parent". It sounds like you are jumping to conclusions.

[Dogzilla]

I think we're in a situation where your moderate affluence has lead you to dramatically expand your costs beyond that which most people of lesser means would see.

I can certainly bet you that the 19% of DC area residents who live below the poverty line aren't sending their kids to $20k/year day care or $18k/ year private preschools.

I understand that $200k household income actually "doesn't go that far" in DC, but I go up to DC a lot and there is a lot of extreme poverty in the DC area. The problem seems to be that you and your wife both were living a lifestyle that just wasn't really that wise at your income level.



This was all I was really getting at, only you said it much more succinctly.

Still wondering what the lawyer's advice has been -- in a general way. The specifics are none of my business.

[Edward The Head]

If the OP doesn't want to put in the time to parent, then he has to pay someone else to do it. His financial liability is in direct proportion to his choices regarding the time put in raising his children.

I really wasn't going to even bother responding, but now I will. Just so you know the courts do NOT take into account the amount of time spent with the children, only the nights. Period. I could be with them every day until 8 when they go to bed and it counts for nothing.

But since you want to know the real answer, I have to be out the door no later then 6:45, if I'm later then that I miss my train to work, if I do that then I'm late to work and I can't leave until 5, which means I don't get home until 6, which means I don't get to pick up my children until 6:15, that's 45 minutes after school closes, which would mean paying an extra $45 every day. So instead of having my kids stay with me they say with her, she takes them to school, I pick them up from school so she doesn't have to come home until 6:30 herself. I have time with my kids 4 nights a week.

I would keep the kids some nights, but it will not work out at this time. But I spend plenty of time with my children thank you very much. And with the exception of them being here in the morning the time hasn't really changed.

[Edward The Head]

And just a cite for average income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States) in Montgomery county, MD, at $94000, which is what I make.

And for House prices (http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Maryland/Montgomery_County-heat_map/). Of which my house is also middle of the road.

I still resent having people say I make too much money or can't make good financial decisions. The difference is totally different here then a lot of mid America and I know is. Again, anyone take 50% of your pay and try and live where you do.

But again I'm not going to get sucked into this being about me. As I said I'll make it work, no matter what it is. I'm going to bow out of the thread though if it just continues this way.

[villa]

First, the obvious way out of paying child support is to man up and fight for custody of your kids. Then let her pay child support.This.

At least fight for 50% physical custody. You said it wasn't feasible for the girls to stay with you overnight. Well you really need to make it feasible. It is very important that you fight for this now at the beginning, and not later on. It's harder to change the living situation the more time goes by.

I feel your pain. My boyfriend is in a very similar situation, which I have written about here before. The system is undeniably set up in favor of the mother. Like you, my BF is paying over 50% of his earnings to his ex-wife.

The difference in his case is that his ex is unemployed, so he has to pay a higher amount. It's strange that in your case you are having to pay such a high amount when your ex is employed and making the same amount as you.

Please talk to your attorney and get this resolved. Do you want to live poor for the next 15 years? You don't have to. It will be a fight, and yes you may lose due to the biased system, but don't give up!

I have problems with both of these...

Strassia - I really find the use of the term "man up" offensive here. Am I somehow less of a man because I didn't fight for physical custody of my son? I knew it was not possible for him to live with me - I rarely get home before 8 pm from work, I travel overseas for a couple of months a year, and I work most weekends that he is not with me. I made the decision not to foght for custody based on what was best for my son, my ex-wife, and myself.

nyctea scandiaca - seeking custody should be done if it is in the best interests of the child, not to make a point or to reduce expenditures. Otherwise you are using the children for your own benefit.

[brickbacon]

And just a cite for average income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States) in Montgomery county, MD, at $94000, which is what I make.

That's household income. Your former household income would be roughly 200k, which is pretty high. I live in DC, so I know the costs of things around here. Even so, I think you are paying a lot in daycare expenses. I would suggest finding a different place to send your kids. Maybe even a retired day care provider, or something like that. You should attempt to impress upon your wife and her representatives that a divorce has consequences. I think cutting back in general is a good idea, and the best place to do so is with your daycare expenses. If not, at least the schools in MD are good.

Is the time you spend with your kids figured into the payments? If you spend 4 nights a week with them, it seems like they spend a decent chunk of their time with you. Ideally, that should count for something.

As an aside, what area of Montgomery County are you in?

[Strassia]

This.

At least fight for 50% physical custody. You said it wasn't feasible for the girls to stay with you overnight. Well you really need to make it feasible. It is very important that you fight for this now at the beginning, and not later on. It's harder to change the living situation the more time goes by.

I feel your pain. My boyfriend is in a very similar situation, which I have written about here before. The system is undeniably set up in favor of the mother. Like you, my BF is paying over 50% of his earnings to his ex-wife.

The difference in his case is that his ex is unemployed, so he has to pay a higher amount. It's strange that in your case you are having to pay such a high amount when your ex is employed and making the same amount as you.

Please talk to your attorney and get this resolved. Do you want to live poor for the next 15 years? You don't have to. It will be a fight, and yes you may lose due to the biased system, but don't give up!

I have problems with both of these...

Strassia - I really find the use of the term "man up" offensive here. Am I somehow less of a man because I didn't fight for physical custody of my son? I knew it was not possible for him to live with me - I rarely get home before 8 pm from work, I travel overseas for a couple of months a year, and I work most weekends that he is not with me. I made the decision not to foght for custody based on what was best for my son, my ex-wife, and myself.

I meant it to be, not exactly offensive, but close. It is a gendered term to highlight what is usually a gendered issue. When a household splits, it is usually in a very predictable way. This is not a direct reflection on you or any other specific individual, but tell me, how would you expect the following blanks to be filled:

"_____ took the kids and left me."
"_____ walked out and left me and the kids"
"_____ isn't paying child support and rarely has time to see the kids"
"I can't believe I'm paying child support after ____ shacked up with ___"

I know there are specific anecdotes where each statement could be made about either gender, but the current socially accepted default is the women takes most of the responsibility for the children. The courts reflect it, employers reflect it, and media reflect it. But it doesn't have to be this way. I know sometimes there are specific reasons for one parent or the other to have custody, but when those specific reasons mean the women has to take primary responsibility 80% of the time, it is telling us that there is more than random chance driving the trend.

Taking gender out of it, child care is expensive and if you are not primary or at least 50/50 custodial then they court will make sure you pay your share. This certainly sucks if you legally your kids are supposed to spend 10% of the time with you, but actually care for them considerably more, but what are they supposed to do? Give you both time clocks to keep track of how much time the kids are with each week? Have each parent submit expense reports detail how much each spends on food, clothes, and pro rating utilities and rent?

nyctea scandiaca - seeking custody should be done if it is in the best interests of the child, not to make a point or to reduce expenditures. Otherwise you are using the children for your own benefit.

[TruCelt]

[quote=Notchimine;12895003 . . . If the OP doesn't want to put in the time to parent, then he has to pay someone else to do it. . .[/quote]

No. The OP produced children, who must now be provided for, and he therefore must provide his part of that support. This is not a payment to or for the other parent.

[begbert2]

The mother is married and doesn't work to any noticeable degree. Her husband's income doesn't count. So she's 'technically' broke, leaving my brother to have to pay a lion's share.Consider the opposite case: If your brother's ex was still single, but your brother was remarried -- should his wife's income count towards calculating his contribution?Yes.

If you want to try and confuse me, start mentioning cases where the person is being supported by persons who are not legally joined to them at the hip. Like, say, if the mother was living with her parents (like, uh, my brother is with mine). In that case I would say that the parents' income should not be counted in either case. But marriage? It's all going into the same pot, legally speaking.

[villa]

I have problems with both of these...

Strassia - I really find the use of the term "man up" offensive here. Am I somehow less of a man because I didn't fight for physical custody of my son? I knew it was not possible for him to live with me - I rarely get home before 8 pm from work, I travel overseas for a couple of months a year, and I work most weekends that he is not with me. I made the decision not to foght for custody based on what was best for my son, my ex-wife, and myself.

I meant it to be, not exactly offensive, but close. It is a gendered term to highlight what is usually a gendered issue. When a household splits, it is usually in a very predictable way. This is not a direct reflection on you or any other specific individual, but tell me, how would you expect the following blanks to be filled:

"_____ took the kids and left me."
"_____ walked out and left me and the kids"
"_____ isn't paying child support and rarely has time to see the kids"
"I can't believe I'm paying child support after ____ shacked up with ___"

I know there are specific anecdotes where each statement could be made about either gender, but the current socially accepted default is the women takes most of the responsibility for the children. The courts reflect it, employers reflect it, and media reflect it. But it doesn't have to be this way. I know sometimes there are specific reasons for one parent or the other to have custody, but when those specific reasons mean the women has to take primary responsibility 80% of the time, it is telling us that there is more than random chance driving the trend.


So how precisely was I not "manning up" when I acted in the best interest of my child?

[even sven]

What did you think would happen when you had children? That you would never have to sacrifice anything for them? That you'd never have to give anything up? That you'd some how get away without the trade-offs every human on this planet make when they bring a children into this world?

The single parents out there that are raising their children are laughing. They don't get to work high-powered careers. They don't get to travel overseas for months. These things are choices that you are making, and if they are choices that are not comparable with having custody of your children, then you have to realize that there will be some other trade-off. You can't have it all. If you have children when you know you are working a career that is incompatible with raising children...what did you think was going to happen?

Did you ever think what would happen if your wife became disabled or whatever? How did you think you were going to raise the kids?

People have to make sacrifices because kids cost money. This is what normal people do. They may have to ride their bikes instead of taking the metro. They may have to bring their lunch to work. They may have to take their kids to the park instead of the movies. These are perfectly ordinary things that people with kids have to do to make it work.

If you can't pay your rent, you need to look at other options. I promise you, there are lower rent neighborhoods in the area. You may have to give up some safety. You know what? People who don't have the money to live in nice neighborhoods can't live in nice neighborhoods. I know when I was growing up my mom could not afford the suburbs, so I didn't live in the suburbs. That is life. You may need to consider a one-bedroom or roommates. Yes, that means your kids may have have to stay on an air mattress in the living. I promise you, it won't kill them.

And really? You can't afford ten bucks a month for Netflix. I've been in some tight situations, but I don't know anyone who can't swing ten bucks a month if it's important to them.

[Strassia]

I meant it to be, not exactly offensive, but close. It is a gendered term to highlight what is usually a gendered issue. When a household splits, it is usually in a very predictable way. This is not a direct reflection on you or any other specific individual, but tell me, how would you expect the following blanks to be filled:

"_____ took the kids and left me."
"_____ walked out and left me and the kids"
"_____ isn't paying child support and rarely has time to see the kids"
"I can't believe I'm paying child support after ____ shacked up with ___"

I know there are specific anecdotes where each statement could be made about either gender, but the current socially accepted default is the women takes most of the responsibility for the children. The courts reflect it, employers reflect it, and media reflect it. But it doesn't have to be this way. I know sometimes there are specific reasons for one parent or the other to have custody, but when those specific reasons mean the women has to take primary responsibility 80% of the time, it is telling us that there is more than random chance driving the trend.


So how precisely was I not "manning up" when I acted in the best interest of my child?

I don't know you or the details of your situation. That said, I suppose you could be said to be "manning up" because you providing more money than direct care to your children. Which was the point I was trying to make (poorly apparently).

If in one split it makes more sense for mom to have primary physical custody than dad, that is just the way it worked out. When in almost all splits that is the way it worked out, then there is probably some gender biasing going on.

Look, I will admit some of my biases are showing through here. It annoys me on several levels that kids are assumed to be the woman's responsibility. I get a little torqued by things things as little as remarks about how I must be doing my wife a favor if I am out alone with the my two little boys. No, I am not doing her a favor, I am being a parent.

If the OP had been a little more specific about his situation and been complaining that Maryland's formula does him a disservice because it will not account for the time he cares for the kids but they don's spend the night I could get behind that. But I suspect that if he and his wife pooled money like a married couple but kept the current two house arrangement he wouldn't be much better off. I seriously doubt his wife is doing as well as she was before the divorce either. Divorce sucks, unfortunately, sometimes you don't have a choice.

[Hilarity N. Suze]

It figures that when you take a family unit and divide it into two living places, the costs will double, even if you stay married.

I haven't worked in family law for a long time, but the formula when I did took the child's expenses and applied the parents' income to them proportionately--so if both parties were making the same amount, the noncustodial parent would have to come up with a figure estimated to be about half the child(ren)'s expenses. And the formula for those expenses came from the income, not actual expenses.

In other words, parents who were making $250K a year would have about $75K attributed to one child, with each of them contributing half of that. Two children were a little less expensive, three even a little less, and so on, but there was a point at which somebody with a lot of children would end up owing most of their income in child support. The formula didn't take into account how much the parents thought they needed to live on.

Also, in Colorado, when people divorce, the agreement makes a particular reference to college expenses, and one of them must shoulder that burden. Whereas if you stay married you don't have to guarantee anything toward your kids' college education.

What they are trying to do is equalize things so that neither party suffers more than the other, financially, from the divorce, which never works. Obviously people with two incomes are going to be more stretched when they have two residences than if they had one.

Every divorced man I know has claimed to feel the effects of burdensome child support, while every divorced woman I know has claimed to suffer from its lack. This is a known and predictable effect of divorce, and you have to ask, is the divorce worth it?

[Ruminator]

Also, in Colorado, when people divorce, the agreement makes a particular reference to college expenses, and one of them must shoulder that burden.

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this? College is an adult expense unless the kid is a child prodigy right?

Non-divorced parents could also start a fund to help with the child's wedding or down payment of a first house. But these are adult purchases.

[villa]

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this? College is an adult expense unless the kid is a child prodigy right?

Not 100%. It's sort of in between. While a parent isn't legally required to help out with college, parental income is included in the calculation for financial aid.

I believe my child support commitment runs through undergrad. That may be revisited, because if my son is living away at college, I think the support should go to him.

[Green Cymbeline]

At least fight for 50% physical custody.

nyctea scandiaca - seeking custody should be done if it is in the best interests of the child, not to make a point or to reduce expenditures. Otherwise you are using the children for your own benefit.How would the father having 50% custody NOT be in the best interest of the child? Why is it always automatically assumed that kids are better off with their mother? What made Edward's wife just assume that she could leave and take the kids with her, and expect to keep them without granting the father equal time?

I think it's usually in the best interest of the child to have both parents equally present in their life. Why assume that if the father wants equal time he's only doing it for his own benefit? These attitudes are why the system is so skewed against men.

[villa]

How would the father having 50% custody NOT be in the best interest of the child? Why is it always automatically assumed that kids are better off with their mother? What made Edward's wife just assume that she could leave and take the kids with her, and expect to keep them without granting the father equal time?

I think it's usually in the best interest of the child to have both parents equally present in their life. Why assume that if the father wants equal time he's only doing it for his own benefit? These attitudes are why the system is so skewed against men.

I explained how it wasn't a viable situation for me. I finish work late, and go in early. I work weekends. I travel internationally.

Yes I could have taken a different job. However, that would have reduced the income available to my son, and also might not have been feasible given the law school debt I incurred before getting divorced.

My son living with me 50% of the time would not be in his best interests, all things considered.

I can't speak for other people's situations, but then again, nor can you. Let's treat child custody cases as individual situations, affecting real people, rather than using presumptions and generalizations. And certainly don't recommend joint physical custody to someone because the alternative is to be poor. Recommend it because it is good for the child.

[Notchimine]

If the OP doesn't want to put in the time to parent, then he has to pay someone else to do it. His financial liability is in direct proportion to his choices regarding the time put in raising his children.

I really wasn't going to even bother responding, but now I will. Just so you know the courts do NOT take into account the amount of time spent with the children, only the nights. Period. I could be with them every day until 8 when they go to bed and it counts for nothing.

But since you want to know the real answer, I have to be out the door no later then 6:45, if I'm later then that I miss my train to work, if I do that then I'm late to work and I can't leave until 5, which means I don't get home until 6, which means I don't get to pick up my children until 6:15, that's 45 minutes after school closes, which would mean paying an extra $45 every day. So instead of having my kids stay with me they say with her, she takes them to school, I pick them up from school so she doesn't have to come home until 6:30 herself. I have time with my kids 4 nights a week.

I would keep the kids some nights, but it will not work out at this time. But I spend plenty of time with my children thank you very much. And with the exception of them being here in the morning the time hasn't really changed.

So what you are doing, as I have said twice, is paying your wife for the time you aren't spending with your children. It is a choice. I am a professional person that works 50 plus hours per week but there was no way in hell I was not going to get joint custody with shared residence of my daughter. We had a four day three day alternating schedule. In the morning I dropped my daughter off at a sitter who took her to school, in the evening the same woman picked her up or a family member or even my ex husband would help out until I got home. If it was my parenting time, and she got sick, I was the one who called in and took her to the doctor.

At 6:45 in the evening you still have plenty time to be with your children. (This is if your employer won't allow you to adjust your schedule a couple of days per week. Have you inquired?) You can check homework, give baths and have that time. Would you have to get up at 5am? Sure but you do what you have to do. Have you even looked into a private person to help you out with before and after school care? I would guess you have not. I am sorry if you feel defensive but the simple truth is you are their father and should be spending equal time. It bothers me that you're complaining more about the money than the issue of not seeing your children practically every day.

Since I make more than my ex, I had to pay him a small amount each month but nothing like what you are going to be responsible to pay. Everything was split and pretty much equal and no one had "visitation" with their own child. If you want to make it work, you can. If you don't, you pay for someone else to take the majority of responsibility of raising your children. What shocks me is that the courts don't insist on this because it is so much better for the children.

[alphaboi867]

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this? College is an adult expense unless the kid is a child prodigy right?

Not 100%. It's sort of in between. While a parent isn't legally required to help out with college, parental income is included in the calculation for financial aid...

And unless the student is over 25, married, or a veteran parental income is a factor in financial aid regardless of whether the parent actually gives any support. There is such a thing as a dependency override (which means the student is treated like an orphan or independent adult for aid purposes), but those can be very, very hard to get.

I knew some people in college who's parents bascially disowned them, were completely on their own, and ran into all sorts of problems getting financial aid.

[Markxxx]

The ideal behind child suipport is the child's "quality of life" or "lifestyle" should not change because of the divorce.

It seems that the OP wasn't living beyond his means, but the family was living AT the income level of two incomes

Now that your going to divorce the court is going to take a very dim view on any parent who is going to try to lower the quality of that child's lifestyle.

[Cat Fight]

At 6:45 in the evening you still have plenty time to be with your children. (This is if your employer won't allow you to adjust your schedule a couple of days per week. Have you inquired?)

I was wondering about this, too. What is your workplace environment like for single parents? Are there any mothers there or people looking after elderly parents who have been allowed some flexibility? You might be worried about coming off looking bad or unprofessional but, well, that is what half of America has been complaining about for some time now. Yes, the distribution seems a bit wonky (though, as others have pointed out, living apart does not mean expenses are halved – though you're right that a roomie doesn't sound ideal), but I can't help but feel that this is the bed we've made, a society that hasn't evolved along with the changing stricture of families.

Any chance of moving to Scandinavia?

[you with the face]

I explained how it wasn't a viable situation for me. I finish work late, and go in early. I work weekends. I travel internationally.

Yes I could have taken a different job. However, that would have reduced the income available to my son, and also might not have been feasible given the law school debt I incurred before getting divorced.

You still seem to be misisng the point here. "I work weekends" is not a physiological handicap that makes you a suboptimal parent. It's a choice just like any other: You chose to keep your job over keeping custody of your kid. This isn't a judgement, but a fact. Maybe it works to your child's benefit, but maybe not.

Consider this: If your ex suddenly took a lucrative job that required her to work weekends, long hours, and travel extensively, what would her options be? To give your kid up for adoption and cut the recipient parents a check every month? I think we can all agree that this would be drastic and unlikely to be in the child's best interest. But essentially, this is the choice you made.

I think when it comes to mothers and fathers, the former is a lot less likely to see losing custody of the kids as a viable option. Having the kids is the central priority around which all other things are negotiated. Men, rightly or wrongly, are the opposite.

[Rumor_Watkins]

nyctea scandiaca - seeking custody should be done if it is in the best interests of the child, not to make a point or to reduce expenditures. Otherwise you are using the children for your own benefit.

How would the father having 50% custody NOT be in the best interest of the child? Why is it always automatically assumed that kids are better off with their mother? What made Edward's wife just assume that she could leave and take the kids with her, and expect to keep them without granting the father equal time?

I think it's usually in the best interest of the child to have both parents equally present in their life. Why assume that if the father wants equal time he's only doing it for his own benefit? These attitudes are why the system is so skewed against men.

wrong.

joint custody is ka-ka. what makes you think that two divorced parents are capable of effectively and jointly making each and every decision regarding their kids?

they aren't. which is why joint custody sounds great and fine in theory, but blows in practice, and it's why joint custody shouldn't be the default. it's far too easy to revert to petty games and use child decisionmaking as a weapon against another spouse.

and there is no modern presumption that the kids are better off with the mother. it's just overwhelmingly the case that most of the time mom has a larger role in the upbringing of young children, so it's better that that link survives.

as for the OP: I sympathize to some degree, and to the extent that your child support calculations are correct (over 50% income seems a bit harsh and, to me, incorrect but i don't know you or your case or maryland child support law) you're just going to have to get used to downgrading your lifestyle.

in general terms, I would prefer writing child support laws to ensure that child support sums are maximally used for the child's benefit, and minimally used to support the custodial spouse and their new paramour (to the extent that those expenditures are severable). However, putting that kind of oversight into the law is extremely costly in terms of complexity, efficiency, and time.

[Strassia]

and there is no modern presumption that the kids are better off with the mother. it's just overwhelmingly the case that most of the time mom has a larger role in the upbringing of young children, so it's better that that link survives.
Those two sentences are contradictory. You are basically saying there is no presumption that the mother should get custody, but usually she should. If nothing else, you are presuming that the mother should get custody.

[Rumor_Watkins]

and there is no modern presumption that the kids are better off with the mother. it's just overwhelmingly the case that most of the time mom has a larger role in the upbringing of young children, so it's better that that link survives.
Those two sentences are contradictory. You are basically saying there is no presumption that the mother should get custody, but usually she should. If nothing else, you are presuming that the mother should get custody.


no, a presumption is completely different from an observational statement of what generally is the case.

try again.

[Morgenstern]

Edward, hope you've negotiated an agreement on who gets the tax deduction, otherwise you may not have seen the end of the surprises.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I explained how it wasn't a viable situation for me. I finish work late, and go in early. I work weekends. I travel internationally.

Yes I could have taken a different job. However, that would have reduced the income available to my son, and also might not have been feasible given the law school debt I incurred before getting divorced.

You still seem to be misisng the point here. "I work weekends" is not a physiological handicap that makes you a suboptimal parent. It's a choice just like any other: You chose to keep your job over keeping custody of your kid. This isn't a judgement, but a fact. Maybe it works to your child's benefit, but maybe not.

Consider this: If your ex suddenly took a lucrative job that required her to work weekends, long hours, and travel extensively, what would her options be? To give your kid up for adoption and cut the recipient parents a check every month? I think we can all agree that this would be drastic and unlikely to be in the child's best interest. But essentially, this is the choice you made.

I think when it comes to mothers and fathers, the former is a lot less likely to see losing custody of the kids as a viable option. Having the kids is the central priority around which all other things are negotiated. Men, rightly or wrongly, are the opposite. Exactly this. The custodial parent picks up most of the slack in both time and money. When a child is sick, who is more likely to stay home, when a couple is married? Who is EXPECTED to stay home, and use his/her sick or personal days for the child? Who is expected to take the child(ren) for routine medical checkups? Sometimes, both parents step up and get these chores done. But even now, it's still USUALLY the mother who takes the kids to appointments, who does the shopping, etc.

[Strassia]

Those two sentences are contradictory. You are basically saying there is no presumption that the mother should get custody, but usually she should. If nothing else, you are presuming that the mother should get custody.


no, a presumption is completely different from an observational statement of what generally is the case.

try again.

it's just overwhelmingly the case that most of the time mom has a larger role in the upbringing of young children, so it's better that that link survives.

Bolding mine.

Or to paraphrase, "There is no presumption, but due to observation, there should be a presumption."

[villa]

You still seem to be misisng the point here. "I work weekends" is not a physiological handicap that makes you a suboptimal parent. It's a choice just like any other: You chose to keep your job over keeping custody of your kid. This isn't a judgement, but a fact. Maybe it works to your child's benefit, but maybe not.

Consider this: If your ex suddenly took a lucrative job that required her to work weekends, long hours, and travel extensively, what would her options be? To give your kid up for adoption and cut the recipient parents a check every month? I think we can all agree that this would be drastic and unlikely to be in the child's best interest. But essentially, this is the choice you made.

I think when it comes to mothers and fathers, the former is a lot less likely to see losing custody of the kids as a viable option. Having the kids is the central priority around which all other things are negotiated. Men, rightly or wrongly, are the opposite.


Can you explain how I could deal with the debt load I incurred while still married and do another job?

I never stated it wasn't a choice. And all I ever said was you cannot make blanket judgments about custody, and it should be done on what is in the best interests of the child. Had I thought me taking another job, defaulting on debt, and having full or joint physical custody would have been in my son's best interests, that is what I would have pursued. I considered the options and decided our current situation was the one in his best interests. He was the central priority, and continues to be, for both my ex and myself (well not so much for her as she has another child to consider - so he is the central priority for me, and a central priority for her).

Decisions like this are not made in vacuums. You don't wake up on the day of separation/divorce with a clean slate. Decisions you made as a couple, while still happily married, have effects which continue into the divorce period. And one of those choices involved me going to law school as a mature student.

[Rumor_Watkins]

no, a presumption is completely different from an observational statement of what generally is the case.

try again.

it's just overwhelmingly the case that most of the time mom has a larger role in the upbringing of young children, so it's better that that link survives.

Bolding mine.

Or to paraphrase, "There is no presumption, but due to observation, there should be a presumption."


um, no.

you are mistaking a positive statement for a normative one.

it is undeniably true that in most divorce/child custody cases already adjudicated, the mother has the stronger attachment to the child, making it in the child's best interest that mom receive primary custody. this has nothing to do with presumptions, or what we ought to believe about a new set of spouses entering the courthouse for the first time. it just is what it is. it's offered as an explanation for why kids end up with their mom most of the times.

[you with the face]

Can you explain how I could deal with the debt load I incurred while still married and do another job?

Look, I don't know your individual home life situation. You may very well be right; your decision to give up custody may be more beneficial to your child than splitting it.

However, the explanations you state in defense of your choices aren't exactly persuading me that having custody is anywhere close to an untenable option in your case. Plenty of parents--both single and coupled--have to deal with debt while raising kids. So how do they do it? I mean, a fraction of them might choose to let their kid live with grandma for an indefinite time period so they can save money or get a more demanding but better paying job. But I'm betting that the vast majority either 1) manage to juggle kids and debt at the same time, even if it means staying in debt for 30 plus years and living in a two bedroom apartment versus a McMansion or 2) take care of the kids and if need be, let their credit score take a few hits if the bill can't be paid that month. There are worse things in the world than defaulting on a loan.

You're asking us to accept that the high-demanding job you have right now is the only one in existence that could allow you to survive. This is a tough sell.

[Aspidistra]

The ideal behind child suipport is the child's "quality of life" or "lifestyle" should not change because of the divorce.

It seems that the OP wasn't living beyond his means, but the family was living AT the income level of two incomes

Now that your going to divorce the court is going to take a very dim view on any parent who is going to try to lower the quality of that child's lifestyle.

That seems like a crazy position to take. Given that the parents now have to support two households, how could "lifestyle" (as in, the amount of money you have to spend on stuff) not take a hit? Having the same proportion of the total income available to the kids is a reasonable goal - having the kids' lifestyle stay exactly the same seems like a recipe for keeping the non-custodial parent in complete penury.

ISTM that the problem in the OP's case is not really the way child support is calculated. The problem is - he didn't actually want to get separated or divorced (right?). So all this extra money has to be found to support his ex-'s lifestyle goal of not living in the same house as the OP. That would have to be pretty galling.

[elbows]

Is it me, or is this basically the shocking blow of learning, a 1200 square foot private home, retirement savings, private schools, are not actually entitlements, but, as for many, unaffordables?

Yeah, it's a drag to have to downsize your lifestyle when shit happens, but shit happens to everybody.

I was especially struck that while screaming too poor to pay utilities, you seem to consider retirement savings an essential. Sounds a little entitled to me, is all. There are a zillion people who can't save for retirement because they have bills to pay.

[kittenblue]

How would the father having 50% custody NOT be in the best interest of the child? Why is it always automatically assumed that kids are better off with their mother? What made Edward's wife just assume that she could leave and take the kids with her, and expect to keep them without granting the father equal time?

I think it's usually in the best interest of the child to have both parents equally present in their life. Why assume that if the father wants equal time he's only doing it for his own benefit? These attitudes are why the system is so skewed against men.

I explained how it wasn't a viable situation for me. I finish work late, and go in early. I work weekends. I travel internationally.

Yes I could have taken a different job. However, that would have reduced the income available to my son, and also might not have been feasible given the law school debt I incurred before getting divorced.

My son living with me 50% of the time would not be in his best interests, all things considered.

I can't speak for other people's situations, but then again, nor can you. Let's treat child custody cases as individual situations, affecting real people, rather than using presumptions and generalizations. And certainly don't recommend joint physical custody to someone because the alternative is to be poor. Recommend it because it is good for the child.

If your spouse had died, instead of just getting a divorce, would you have changed your work routine for your child?

In my case, my ex-husband getting 50% custody (which he did not want)would not have been good for the kids if he had kept the lifestyle he was leading. They would have been around a drunken partying parent and a new spouse who openly hated our kids. If he had been a responsible person, maybe it would have worked...lord knows his abandonment of them did lots of damage.

And the $200 a month per child that he paid, sometimes, didn't do much to help. Maybe you could just look at it differently...be glad you make enough money to be able to pay $2000 a month! And that you will have many more years to save for retirement. I have, oh.....$1 in retirement savings, and I'm 53!

[Martin Hyde]

And just a cite for average income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States) in Montgomery county, MD, at $94000, which is what I make.

And for House prices (http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Maryland/Montgomery_County-heat_map/). Of which my house is also middle of the road.

I still resent having people say I make too much money or can't make good financial decisions. The difference is totally different here then a lot of mid America and I know is. Again, anyone take 50% of your pay and try and live where you do.

But again I'm not going to get sucked into this being about me. As I said I'll make it work, no matter what it is. I'm going to bow out of the thread though if it just continues this way.

Like someone has already said, that is median household income. (Just rounding) your household income used to be $200,000. With that $200,000 you had a residence for yourself, your wife, and two kids. You had utility bills and all expenses for the four of you under one household's income.

With a divorce you're now going from a $200,000 household income (which is 100% higher than the median) to two $100k household incomes. Unfortunately, $100k doesn't go as far in two separate houses as $200k does in one house. There are certain economies of scale in being married (or with having roommates or anyone you can share household expenses with.)

Simple fact of the matter is don't expect to live the same life you lived before. If you and your wife just were on your own it might have been possible. But with kids it's probably far too expensive for both of you to individually have two homes equal to the one you shared as a married couple.

Just as an example, imagine your wife and you never got divorced. But instead you bought a second house, you don't move into that house, but you hook up all the utilities and let's say you let someone live there for free who runs up two-people's worth of utility expenses in the second house.

What happens? Well, you probably are going to experience economic hardship because you're trying to cover a lot more expense with the same income.

[Martin Hyde]

Further, your average county income listing includes a lot of moderately well off suburbs of D.C. Sadly, not everyone can afford to live in the nice D.C. area suburbs, a lot of people (the 19% of the D.C. area that lives under the poverty line) probably don't live in nice housing in the burbs. Further, all the college kids, young people detached from parents and et cetera, aren't living single in houses with room for four people.

[villa]

If your spouse had died, instead of just getting a divorce, would you have changed your work routine for your child?

In my case, my ex-husband getting 50% custody (which he did not want)would not have been good for the kids if he had kept the lifestyle he was leading. They would have been around a drunken partying parent and a new spouse who openly hated our kids. If he had been a responsible person, maybe it would have worked...lord knows his abandonment of them did lots of damage.

And the $200 a month per child that he paid, sometimes, didn't do much to help. Maybe you could just look at it differently...be glad you make enough money to be able to pay $2000 a month! And that you will have many more years to save for retirement. I have, oh.....$1 in retirement savings, and I'm 53!

Absolutely I would have changed my work routine - because that would have been in the best interests of my son. That's all I am asking - that custody decisions be made with the best interest of the children. The idea that joint physical custody is always the right thing to go for is what I am complaining about. Moreover, the frankly ridiculous idea that someone should go for joint physical custody in order to reduce the amount of child support they are required to pay amazes me. Each situation is different, and should be approached based on its own circumstances and what is in the best interests of the child.

I don't know where you are getting a $2000 figure - I have never mentioned the amount I pay. And I don't begrudge a penny of it. I have never sought to reduce it, and in fact have voluntarily increased it at various stages. I'm sorry your ex was such an asshole. But there really is no need to project that onto my situation.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

The ideal behind child suipport is the child's "quality of life" or "lifestyle" should not change because of the divorce.I think you're correct that this is the "ideal", but I vehemently disagree that it should be so. Why should the child's lifestyle be sacred while the parents are reduced to poverty so as to support it? It doesn't make sense to me at all.

[If I was writing the laws I would say - among other things - that child support should max out at the level where the kid will not suffer from malnutrition and the like. IOW, at the point where DYFS would not intervene if it were an intact family. Anything more than that is gravy. I imagine a lot of non-custodial parents would want to pay more, especially if their exes encouraged a meaningful role in the kids' lives. But I don't see any reason to oblige more.]

[Omar Little]

Based upon what the OP has stated, I would agree that the Maryland laws should be changed to account for all time that the kids are in the parents custody...not just to consider where they sleep.

If the amount of time they are in the father's custody vs. the mother's custody is 50/50, and they make roughly the same amount, then no child support should be paid by either parent. If the one parent's income is significantly greater than the other, and the time spent is still 50/50, then the higher paid parent, should be paying the lower paid parent some form of child support.

The problem, that I see, is the way the State defines "time in custody" as overnight with a particular parent.

[CaveMike]

Based upon what the OP has stated, I would agree that the Maryland laws should be changed to account for all time that the kids are in the parents custody...not just to consider where they sleep.Counted by the hour? Do you count the 10-11 hours the kids are asleep? If you count the time getting ready for bed, sleeping, and getting ready in the morning -- isn't that the majority of non-school hours? (Weekends excluded, of course.)

Counting overnights is an easy and clear thing to identify and track. It should be accurate for the majority of the cases. Adding up hours here and there gets trickier and the onus would be on all cases -- not just the ones that would benefit from the increased granularity.

[don't ask]

Years ago when I was in a similar situation what amazed me was that the calculation for my child support included the money I was losing on the investment properties I owned with my soon to be ex-wife. So, although I was paying out money to maintain our investments, I had to pay a percentage of what I was losing to my wife each month, because it was treated as though I was not losing it. So I had to borrow money to pay my child support.

My wife got the investment properties in the divorce settlement.

[Omar Little]

Counting overnights is an easy and clear thing to identify and track. It should be accurate for the majority of the cases. Adding up hours here and there gets trickier and the onus would be on all cases -- not just the ones that would benefit from the increased granularity.

I agree with you that for the majority of cases where Dad only sees his kids two weekends a month and for 2 weeks in the summer, that just counting the nights is simple and generally acceptable and approximates the actual time spent.

But in the OP's case where he is essentially their after school day care every evening, so his ex-wife can work late and he then takes them home to be put to bed...results in a grossly unfair economic outcome. Maybe his lawyer should be doing a better job of negotiating a fairer settlement for his particular case.

[Hello Again]

The formula seems to be against you only because you don't want the inconvenience of being a parent and would rather have your kids visit you.

I was wondering how long it would take to get to the "blame the OP" stage.

Well, "It's not feasible to have my children stay overnight" is some pretty weak shit. I knew a lot of divorced kids, and some of their parents lived in small, shitty apartments, or even had roommates, and they found it "feasible" to have their kids over for 24 hours at a time.

[CaveMike]

Counting overnights is an easy and clear thing to identify and track. It should be accurate for the majority of the cases. Adding up hours here and there gets trickier and the onus would be on all cases -- not just the ones that would benefit from the increased granularity.

I agree with you that for the majority of cases where Dad only sees his kids two weekends a month and for 2 weeks in the summer, that just counting the nights is simple and generally acceptable and approximates the actual time spent.

But in the OP's case where he is essentially their after school day care every evening, so his ex-wife can work late and he then takes them home to be put to bed...results in a grossly unfair economic outcome. Maybe his lawyer should be doing a better job of negotiating a fairer settlement for his particular case.It can be unfair, but I don't think it is grossly unfair.

I don't know enough about the OP's situation so consider this hypothetical: Parent A picks the kids up from school and watches them from 3pm to 8pm. Parent A drops them off at Parent B's house. Parent B puts the kids to bed and gets them ready for school. Parent B has them from 8pm to 8am.

In this case, Parent B has them for 12 hours compared to Parent A's 5 hours -- that's more than double the hours. To get any increase in fairness over the nighttime rule, you would have to count down to the hour. Consider what a mess that would be for couples that are already estranged. Then multiple that by every divorced couple (I assume the law has to treat all cases equally).

If you are counting hours, do you also have to count travel times from Parent A to Parent B's house? Do you split the difference 50/50? What if one parent wants to move? Do they take more of the split? Using an hour granularity is a logistical nightmare.

And this is all ignoring the point that Parent B has the kids all night. They need to be home (or pay for a sitter). They can't go grocery shopping, run errands, go out -- nothing. They have the kids for 12 hours in each 24 hour period. Subtracting for work, commutes, getting ready -- how much time do they have left in the day?

Parent A on the other hand has the kids for 5 hours in a 24 hour period. Even after time spent at work, commuting, eating, and getting ready -- they still have time for errands.

[BlinkingDuck]

Think its bad now?
Wait till she gets a "live in" boyfriend. He will (no doubt) contibute to her upkeep-but this income makes no difference in what YOU have to pay.
You will soon be supporting 4 people, not three!:mad:

What does the live-in boyfriend's income have to do with anything? They are not his kids.

[Edward The Head]

Well, "It's not feasible to have my children stay overnight" is some pretty weak shit. I knew a lot of divorced kids, and some of their parents lived in small, shitty apartments, or even had roommates, and they found it "feasible" to have their kids over for 24 hours at a time.

And here's the reason why, and I know this as I just did it yesterday. My wife had to be at work at 7, the oldest can't get to school until 7:45. So I took her at 7:45, rushed to catch the last train just after 8 and made it to work at 9. I can't leave until 5:30, but the soonest train to then is 6 so I don't get home until 6:45, hence I can't see my children except for an hour or so in the morning and that's it. I could do this, but I would spend less time with them then I do now. That also means that there would have to be after after school care, costing more. So please don't say it's 'some weak shit' just because of how it works for me.

I know, I could drive, but in the DC area it would take me well over an hour to get to work, I would be late, I would pay for parking and gas, and there's still the hour plus to get home. My situation works out fine for the both of us, and has for years. So yeah I could do all that, but it would just make things worse not better.

[Mozart1220]

When I was divorced (against my will) I was pretty much making minimum wage. My wife had a live in boyfriend at her place, never cleaned the place up, the kids were always at a friends so she could go out at night, and she had no job.

I still had my job and had Social services at my door at all hours for "inspections".

The judge at the hearing actually awarded her custody because (I'm not kidding, I have the transcripts) "You sir, have a job and that's commendable, but you can be fired or laid off. She will have her welfare as long as she continues to keep the paperwork current, so I find her to be the more reliabe guardian of the children".

KMy child support was set at about $75 more per month than I made, and the judge said "well, you may need to improve your station".

[even sven]

I don't think you are going to win with the "I had a kid, now I'm pissed because I'm broke" thing. That's not a new and unique story. Do you have any idea how few parents get the luxury of not struggling financially? Having kids is practically synonymous with having to make tough budget choices- choices which are usually stunningly more difficult that what to do about homes in exclusive high-end suburbs and double-digit private schools.

I live in DC. I live in somebody's basement. This is because I don't have money to afford a nice place. You also don't have money to afford a nice place. Welcome to life.

This is why our parents tell us to think before we get knocked up. This is where the saying "After you have kids, nothing is the same" comes from. This is why they say parenting changes your priorities forever. This is why people talk about having to give up some of their career for the sake of their family.These things apply to well-off people, too!

I think what is confusing people is that you seem to consider your children your last priority- you will try to include them in your life only if everything else is taken care of. Most people will go through hell or high water to be a part of their kid's lives. You seem much more interested in your career, your house, etc. You just want the kids to be there without having to actually DO too much about it, even if all you have to do is cut a check.

I know you did not want to make this personal. But when you are complaining about how your kids don't let you maintain a lifestyle that most people on this board could only dream of, you are going to get some flack.

[Mozart1220]

I wasn't complaining about finances. I was complaining about the judge giving a lazy self centered woman custody of children she apparently only wanted for the welfare checks, while screwing the father who worked to support them.

And I have seen many examples of this same thing since it happened to me.

[tumbleddown]

I wasn't complaining about finances. I was complaining about the judge giving a lazy self centered woman custody of children she apparently only wanted for the welfare checks, while screwing the father who worked to support them.
So you married a lazy, self centered woman, then, knowing that she was lazy and self centered reproduced with her more than once. And didn't want to divorce her even though by your report she is not only lazy and self centered, but a bad, unloving mother to boot.

Oooookay then.

[Eva Luna]

I was wondering how long it would take to get to the "blame the OP" stage.

Well, "It's not feasible to have my children stay overnight" is some pretty weak shit. I knew a lot of divorced kids, and some of their parents lived in small, shitty apartments, or even had roommates, and they found it "feasible" to have their kids over for 24 hours at a time.

Seriously, when my parents got divorced, Dad got a one-bedroom place half a mile away from Mom. He managed to have my sister and me stay with him every other weekend; he just got two twin beds and put them in the living room instead of having couches, so we would have somewhere to sleep. People make it work.

[Sam Stone]

The thing that jumped out at me was that the OP could easily drop his retirement savings for now. That would give him $1050 per month after child support and fixed expenses. That seems eminently livable to me. And if the kids are 2 and 4, the OP is probably fairly young. If he's already making $100K, he's got plenty of time later to ramp up his retirement savings.

The other thing that jumped out at me was that Maryland is crazy expensive - especially for child care. Child care here in Edmonton is about $600/mo. Maybe $800-$1000/mo in the best places. Is $20,000 per year really the cheapest day care you can find? Or is this some gold-plated place for the kids of rich yuppies?

Also, you say that your other kid is in pre-school which cost $18,000 per year. That means you were paying $38,000 for two children to be in institutional care? I imagine you could have hired a nanny for that kind of money.

In any event, will your children not still need after-school care once they are in school? You said your wife doesn't get home until late, and neither do you. It sounds to me like you'll need after-school care for the kids, which can cost about half of what day care costs. Have you factored that in?

I think the root problem you have, and why your child care expenses are half of your income, is that you were spending a huge amount of money for your kid's care. Your townhouse sounds reasonable, and the $1600 rent doesn't seem out of line, but those child care costs are insane.

Anyway, cut the automatic retirement savings, spend what you have to, and then put whatever is left into your 401(k). You should be able to live reasonably well on $1050 per month for groceries, utilities, and spending money.


Think its bad now?
Wait till she gets a "live in" boyfriend. He will (no doubt) contibute to her upkeep-but this income makes no difference in what YOU have to pay.
You will soon be supporting 4 people, not three!:mad:

What does the live-in boyfriend's income have to do with anything? They are not his kids.

I take issue with this. If a man (or a woman) moves into a household with children, they are making a commitment to those kids. It doesn't matter who the genetic father is - it's about the kids. The whole point to child support is to make sure the children's lifestyle and care is not unduly damaged by divorce. If another man or woman comes into the picture and takes on a parental role, that should let the original parent at least partially off the hook.

To me, the unfair situations occur when one spouse remarries and returns to the kind of family income that was enjoyed before the divorce, while the other parent is bled dry with his or her money becoming extra income for the other family. This is damaging in a number of ways. First, I think it's unjust. But second, if one parent is now living on half an income while the other is living on two and a half incomes, the standard of living disparity can grow large, which can affect how the children relate to the parents.

And it cuts both ways - if the kids actually like the poorer parent (or dislike the new mom/dad), then they'll come to see the setup as being unjust, and grow to resent the custodial parent.

To me, a man moving into a family household and living free while someone else pays the bills is just as much a freeloader as a deadbeat dad who skips out on the kids. If it were me, I wouldn't care what the law said - if I took on someone else's kids as my own, I would not expect the ex-husband to pay for the kids any more, other than whatever costs he incurs when they are in his custody.

[RickJay]

The thing that jumped out at me was that the OP could easily drop his retirement savings for now. That would give him $1050 per month after child support and fixed expenses. That seems eminently livable to me. And if the kids are 2 and 4, the OP is probably fairly young. If he's already making $100K, he's got plenty of time later to ramp up his retirement savings.

The other thing that jumped out at me was that Maryland is crazy expensive - especially for child care. Child care here in Edmonton is about $600/mo. Maybe $800-$1000/mo in the best places. Is $20,000 per year really the cheapest day care you can find?
That's not outrageous in large metropolitan areas for pretty middle-of-the-road daycare.

I live well outside Toronto and $600/month day care is a fantasy; $900 is what you'll pay in my suburban town for decent daycare. Nothing special, just a good place. In outlying parts of the City of Toronto it's typically more like $1200-$1300 a month, as my sister is finding out; you're already up to $15K a year right there.

[Edward The Head]

I don't think you are going to win with the "I had a kid, now I'm pissed because I'm broke" thing.

Well good because I'm not saying that. At all.

choices which are usually stunningly more difficult that what to do about homes in exclusive high-end suburbs and double-digit private schools.

Funny, I don't live in a high end suburb, I live in a house that is CHEAPER then average for Montgomery county. And the private school costs almost the exact same as day care, wouldn't you want your kid to be in school instead of day care? And for the record the cheapest one could find day care in this area is around $300 a week, and that's in someone's house, good luck actually getting that though.

I think what is confusing people is that you seem to consider your children your last priority- you will try to include them in your life only if everything else is taken care of.

Where did you get that? I see my kids almost every weekday, everyone. I also have them every other weekend, like this past weekend. I see them as much as possible.

Most people will go through hell or high water to be a part of their kid's lives. You seem much more interested in your career, your house, etc. You just want the kids to be there without having to actually DO too much about it, even if all you have to do is cut a check.

My career? Where did you get that? Because of my work schedule? If I take a different schedule I will see them LESS. How it works now works for everyone, including the kids. So yeah, just what I want, change so they can spend the night a couple of nights a week then not see them at all during the week except an hour in the morning. Yeah, that's smart.

I know you did not want to make this personal. But when you are complaining about how your kids don't let you maintain a lifestyle that most people on this board could only dream of, you are going to get some flack.

I never said I wanted to maintain a lifestyle, as a matter of fact I've already changed it. However, can YOU live off of $500 a month in this area, remember this includes utilities, food, gas, insurance and taking the kids out to do something? Don't forget the lawyer fees, which are $300+ an hour, and all the other activities the kids want to do, of which I have to pay half of as well.

And yes I could kill my 401k off, but I'm almost 40, so I have to wait 16 more years until the youngest is off to college, oh wait, I'll have to pay for some of that too, so 20 more years. Which means almost 60, which means no real savings for me. Also since I work for the feds I know what my salary will be, and I will not be going up since I'm as high as I can get.

So shall I go over this again? I have my kids, or see them, 4-5 nights a week, I also see them every other weekend. They can stay the night over the weekends, but during the week it is not practical for anyone to do this. Yes it could be done, but it means more of a hassle, more spent on child care, and LESS time with the kids for me. And for the record I didn't want any of this to happen. My wife is the one who left me so I have no choice in the matter.

[kittenblue]

[QUOTE=kittenblue;12903854]I don't know where you are getting a $2000 figure - I have never mentioned the amount I pay. And I don't begrudge a penny of it. I have never sought to reduce it, and in fact have voluntarily increased it at various stages. I'm sorry your ex was such an asshole. But there really is no need to project that onto my situation.

I'm sorry...I was reading and typing quickly and I got you and the OP mixed together. Sorry.

[Mozart1220]

I wasn't complaining about finances. I was complaining about the judge giving a lazy self centered woman custody of children she apparently only wanted for the welfare checks, while screwing the father who worked to support them.
So you married a lazy, self centered woman, then, knowing that she was lazy and self centered reproduced with her more than once. And didn't want to divorce her even though by your report she is not only lazy and self centered, but a bad, unloving mother to boot.

Oooookay then.
Sometimes one doesn't know the real personality of those they marry until after it happens. Ever wonder WHY so many get divorced?

Yeah, I made a mistake, but the judge compounded it. Want to keep talking about something you know nothing about?

[even sven]

I never said I wanted to maintain a lifestyle, as a matter of fact I've already changed it. However, can YOU live off of $500 a month in this area, remember this includes utilities, food, gas, insurance and taking the kids out to do something? Don't forget the lawyer fees, which are $300+ an hour, and all the other activities the kids want to do, of which I have to pay half of as well.

I get about $416 a month after rent here, so I might not be the one to ask. Still breathing!

[DCnDC]

Looks to me like the biggest problem you have here is the young age of your children. If they were a bit older they'd be in school, and lucky for you Montgomery County has one of the best public school systems in the country. If you can just hold it down until they're in school those massive costs will disappear on their own.

In the meantime, unfortunately thisI was told, by my lawyer no less, to sell my house, take any equity, move into a smaller place, and use the equity to pay for child support.sounds like good advice. Definitely not what you want to hear, but your lawyer is right.

For the record, I live in MoCo, I grew up here, and except for college and a few years in Petworth I've lived here my entire life. Owning in MoCo is not worth it. I rent a nice 3-bed apartment in Takoma Park that's probably bigger than your townhouse and much closer to DC where I assume you work for $200 less than your mortgage. There are plenty of places you could move to in the area that could save you enough money to still live decently and take care of your kids.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

People are suggesting all sorts of ways the OP could make it work. Let's say they're all correct. That's not the question. The question is if it's just.

Is it right that he has to make a drastic reduction in his standard of living so that his kids (and, most likely, his ex-wife) can make no (or virtually no) reduction at all?

[villa]

Is it right that he has to make a drastic reduction in his standard of living so that his kids (and, most likely, his ex-wife) can make no (or virtually no) reduction at all?

Where on earth do you get the idea his ex-wife won't make any reduction in her standard of living?

And yes, kids are responsibilities. If you think there will be no drop off for the kids, you are deluding yourself as well. But it should be minimized. It's one of the costs of getting divorced. Kids aren't pets, where your (legal) responsibiities end at feeding them and not beating them.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Is it right that he has to make a drastic reduction in his standard of living so that his kids (and, most likely, his ex-wife) can make no (or virtually no) reduction at all?Where on earth do you get the idea his ex-wife won't make any reduction in her standard of living?Do the math in the OP. She gets all her income, plus some of his (over and above child care), plus the tax deductions. (It's not clear who pays for insurance family coverage.) The marginal costs of caring for small children (after child care) are not that great.

And yes, kids are responsibilities. If you think there will be no drop off for the kids, you are deluding yourself as well. But it should be minimized. It's one of the costs of getting divorced.I don't see why that should be so.

If there was an intact family that suffered an economic setback, I don't think too many people would think there's some moral imperative that the father alone absorb all the decrease in living standard, so that his children should be shielded as much as possible. I don't see why a divorce situation is any different.

[villa]

I have never seen a divorce situation where both ex-spouses don't see a drop off in standard of living.

Do you have kids yourself?

[Hello Again]

Is it right that he has to make a drastic reduction in his standard of living so that his kids (and, most likely, his ex-wife) can make no (or virtually no) reduction at all?

How is covering every sick day, doing every dinner, cleaning up after the kids every time, and never having someone to help you NOT a reduction in standard of living for the Ex? She now has a true "second shift" she is solely responsible for the kids on a day-to-day basis. Every stuffy nose, every nightmare, every grocery-store tantrum is now wholly her problem.

Should the OP act to take a greater hand in the day to day care of his children, the amount he would owe would be reduced. It's really very simple. If you take no hand in the day-to-day of caring for your children, you're going to have to pay the other person in compensation for doing that which is rightfully your job.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I have never seen a divorce situation where both ex-spouses don't see a drop off in standard of living.I have.

I do agree that generally both take a hit. But it's a matter of degree. The vast majority of people I see moving out of nice houses into rink-a-dink apartments are fathers.

[I am aware that there are some studies which purport to show otherwise. But I suspect that these studies are flawed, most likely by ignoring welfare payments on the lower end and tax exemptions on the middle and upper end. Also, I believe they predate current child support laws and enforcement efforts.]

And in any event, I'm going by the math in this particular case.

Do you have kids yourself?Yes.

How is covering every sick day, doing every dinner, cleaning up after the kids every time, and never having someone to help you NOT a reduction in standard of living for the Ex? She now has a true "second shift" she is solely responsible for the kids on a day-to-day basis. Every stuffy nose, every nightmare, every grocery-store tantrum is now wholly her problem.I think that's a skewed way of looking at things.

These are non-financial issues. No one is equalizing the non-financial side of things.

Everyone who has kids deals with runny noses etc. And yet, people willingly go on having them. They are a hassle. But people find them to be worth it. When you get custody of children, you get an outsize percentage of the downside of having children, as compared to your ex-spouse. But you also get an outsize percentage of the positive as well.

I've heard people make your argument before (mostly my wife, whenever we discuss the topic :)). But it's not logical. Here you have women fighting tooth and nail to get as much custody as possible, and when they win it, you say it's a decline in their standard of living and now their spouse needs to pay them to compensate for their victory.

The hassle that the ex-wife has to deal with will be made up for by the strength of the relationship that she can build. No one is compensating the ex-husband for his loss in this area. It's only when it comes to him paying that we introduce the issue. This is unjust.

[villa]

I do agree that generally both take a hit. But it's a matter of degree. The vast majority of people I see moving out of nice houses into rink-a-dink apartments are fathers.

Well of course. Jesus, just think about it. Who is more likely to move into a smaller place? The person with physical custody of the children or the person without physical custody of the children?

That's what you are missing. While you maintain that the marginal costs of a young child are minimal, the marginal savings from removing an adult are likely to be lower than the child support paid. It's often said that two can live as cheaply as one.

Take a married couple with three children, living in a 4 bedroom house. The parents separate and the mother is awarded full custody. The mother's needs for sleeping accomodation/bathrooms/living space have not changed. The father's, on the other hand, have. I lived in a one bedroom apartment for the first two years of my divorce, and when my son visited, I slept on the couch. That's feasible for weekend visits. It's not feasible for permanent arrangements.

So of course the ex-husband is likely to be the one downsizing accomodation. And, at the same time, likely downsizing electricity bills, heating bills etc etc.


These are non-financial issues. No one is equalizing the non-financial side of things.



Actually, they aren't non-financial issues to the extent they impact directly on a person's ability to earn. Were I to have to be available 24/7 as a caregiver, I would take a significant hit in income - I would estimate at least 50%, if not more.

[CaveMike]

Here you have women fighting tooth and nail to get as much custody as possible, and when they win it, you say it's a decline in their standard of living and now their spouse needs to pay them to compensate for their victory.In the US, the fundamental goal of the system is to prioritize the children's needs over everything else. What is fair to the parents is not only not a priority, it is irrelevant. As a result, the parent that has custody will have a child-support settlement in their favor. The only way to equalize child-support among parents is to equalize custody. If you agree with the fundamental goal of prioritizing the children's needs then this is the automatic outcome.

Now in the case of the OP, he has a valid debatable point in that he feels his caretaking will be unrepresented in the settlement because the law requires the children to stay overnight when calculating child-support. I can appreciate this point of view, but I think it would over-complicate the calculations for every child-support case if you counted by hours instead of overnights.

Regarding the OP's specific case: You really can't do that math as you said. The info in the OP is incomplete and both parents have not even filed their paperwork yet -- let alone settled.

Another point to consider is that not all cases involve two parents fighting tooth-and-nail for maximum custody. The same set of laws needs to resolve cases where one parent does not want either custody or is willing to provide child-support. I think it is the dynamic of these cases that really drives custody and child-support laws.

[Muffin]

villa, you have a good head on your shoulders.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Well of course. Jesus, just think about it. Who is more likely to move into a smaller place? The person with physical custody of the children or the person without physical custody of the children?Well, yeah. But you can't claim that the guy is not lowering his standard of living in the process.

That's what you are missing. While you maintain that the marginal costs of a young child are minimal, the marginal savings from removing an adult are likely to be lower than the child support paid. It's often said that two can live as cheaply as one.That's exaggerating, and adults are a lot more expensive than children, in terms of food, clothing, health care costs, transportation (i.e. a car) and any number of other expenses (day care being the big exception, if at younger ages).

But I agree that for the most part the custodial parent will take a hit as well. But there's a big difference in degree.

Actually, they aren't non-financial issues to the extent they impact directly on a person's ability to earn. Were I to have to be available 24/7 as a caregiver, I would take a significant hit in income - I would estimate at least 50%, if not more.But to the extent that they are financial issues, they are already accounted for in setting the terms.

Again, the argument being put forth here is that even if as a result of the settlement - which reflects the post-divorce net income and expenses of both parents - the father gets the worse deal from a financial standpoint, the mother is lowering her standard of living by having to deal with runny noses etc. And my response is that this is a non-financial angle, and that the non-financial situation overall favors the custodial parent in any event, as evidenced by the fact that people keep choosing this option.

[villa]

And my response is that this is a non-financial angle, and that the non-financial situation overall favors the custodial parent in any event, as evidenced by the fact that people keep choosing this option.

Then by your calculations, divorce favors the father, as evidenced by the fact that men keep choosing this option.

Why then should we care about your supposed unfairness in the system when there is no shortage of men lining up to be taken advantage of in this way?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

In the US, the fundamental goal of the system is to prioritize the children's needs over everything else. What is fair to the parents is not only not a priority, it is irrelevant. As a result, the parent that has custody will have a child-support settlement in their favor. The only way to equalize child-support among parents is to equalize custody. If you agree with the fundamental goal of prioritizing the children's needs then this is the automatic outcome.But, as noted in an earlier post to this thread, I don't agree with "the fundamental goal of prioritizing the children's needs", and think it's completely unjust. It's evil.

I do agree with you that once you accept "the fundamental goal of prioritizing the children's needs" much of the rest flows. And much of the problem that fathers/mens rights groups have is that they feel compelled to accept this basic premise and thus the main thrust of their argument is frequently that they're really arguing for the best interests of the children, which is not generally convincing. But for myself, I disagree with the premise.

Regarding the OP's specific case: You really can't do that math as you said. The info in the OP is incomplete and both parents have not even filed their paperwork yet -- let alone settled.I'm going by what he gave. Frankly he could be making the whole thing up, for all I know. But the premise of this thread is that the situation is as he described it.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

And my response is that this is a non-financial angle, and that the non-financial situation overall favors the custodial parent in any event, as evidenced by the fact that people keep choosing this option.

Then by your calculations, divorce favors the father, as evidenced by the fact that men keep choosing this option.

Why then should we care about your supposed unfairness in the system when there is no shortage of men lining up to be taken advantage of in this way?I believe you are hoisted by your own petard here. Because the stats show that the overwhelming percentage of divorces are initiated by women.

[And I'll bet - though I've not seen stats on this - that the percentage of male initiators is much higher when there are no children involved.]

So the statistics indicate that women tend to regard divorce much more favorably than do men. Which is consistent with my argument, and inconsistent with yours.

[villa]

Such numbers would of course include my divorce, where I left my wife and she filed the paperwork. I would imagine, though have no evidence, that the majority of divorces are male instigated in the true sense of the word. They certainly have been in my experience.

[CaveMike]

But, as noted in an earlier post to this thread, I don't agree with "the fundamental goal of prioritizing the children's needs", and think it's completely unjust. It's evil.I saw that post, but I did not realize that it was yours.

So your opinion is that the children's needs should not be prioritized beyond basic food, clothing, and shelter regardless of the means of either parent? (You mentioned only malnutrition, but I am assuming you meant basic necessities.) Perhaps that a parent could provide more support to their children, but they could not be legally compelled?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Such numbers would of course include my divorce, where I left my wife and she filed the paperwork. I would imagine, though have no evidence, that the majority of divorces are male instigated in the true sense of the word. They certainly have been in my experience.Not in my experience. Not even close. From my experience, about 80% - to 90% have been initiated by women. Although I believe the actual stat is about 75%.

ISTM that the vast majority of divorces by Dopers on this board are also initiated by women, based on threads on the subject by both genders. (Maybe someone wants to run a poll.)

You need some sort of explanation before proposing a vast discrepancy between legal initiation and "true sense of the word" instigation.

So your opinion is that the children's needs should not be prioritized beyond basic food, clothing, and shelter regardless of the means of either parent? (You mentioned only malnutrition, but I am assuming you meant basic necessities.) Perhaps that a parent could provide more support to their children, but they could not be legally compelled?Yes, that's my position.

That also happens to be the prevailing state of affairs for parents who are not divorced. Or for custodial parents who are divorced, for that matter. There's only one exception to this rule.

(I think the "right thing to do" would generally be to treat kids better than that. But I don't think the kids have some inalieable right to any more, or that anything more should be enforced, let alone prioritized over the needs of the parent - who is actually making the money. Again, much as it is with custodial parents.)

[I should note, though, that even if you don't go as far as this position, that doesn't mean that children's needs necessarily come before their parents. You could try to make everyone equal, for example.]

[villa]

ISTM that the vast majority of divorces by Dopers on this board are also initiated by women, based on threads on the subject by both genders. (Maybe someone wants to run a poll.)

You need some sort of explanation before proposing a vast discrepancy between legal initiation and "true sense of the word" instigation.


I did explain by reference to my situation. I left my wife. Moved out. Told her it was over. She filed for divorce. Under your numbers, she initiated the divorce, which is pretty meaningless.

By true sense of the word instigation I mean the person who left the other, threw the other out, or who took the actions which ended the marriage. In my experience, in the majority of instances, that has been the man. I don't know the numbers, and I don't think it would be a HUGE discrepancy (maybe 2/3 to 1/2) but I would bet a lot that well over 50% are initiated in that sense by men. Either leaving their wives, or getting caught cheating etc.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I did explain by reference to my situation.I understood what you meant.

What I'm saying is that you need some sort of rationale to account for the notion that men are more likely to actually instigate while women are more likely to file. Absent an explanation, you would think the numbers should be the same for instigating and filing.

There could be men who initiate and women who file, but you could also have the opposite, so it should even out in the end, absent some compelling reason.

[On that note, I know a guy who is quite possibly in a divorce situation at this time. Right now they're separate, completely at his wife's instigation, and he is desparately doing everying he can to keep the marriage together. But I'm thinking he might be wise to consider filing for divorce. Right now she has all the cards, and is taking her sweet time deciding what she wants to do, while making him jump through all sorts of hoops. But I think time is not on his side. Because the longer it drags on, the worse off he will be if it comes to a divorce, both because he will have been out of the family picture for longer and because all the extra effort he is putting out now will have become established as the status quo that needs to be maintained in divorce.

So I think he should give it a bit more time, but if she won't commit to giving another shot, he is probably better off filing himself. Not that he won't lose out in the divorce - he is absolutely dead meat. But that's out of his hands - she can get divorced whether he likes it or not - and he is going to be even deader meat if this drags on another year and then she decides to go ahead with it.]

[Edward The Head]

How is covering every sick day, doing every dinner, cleaning up after the kids every time, and never having someone to help you NOT a reduction in standard of living for the Ex? She now has a true "second shift" she is solely responsible for the kids on a day-to-day basis. Every stuffy nose, every nightmare, every grocery-store tantrum is now wholly her problem.

Should the OP act to take a greater hand in the day to day care of his children, the amount he would owe would be reduced. It's really very simple. If you take no hand in the day-to-day of caring for your children, you're going to have to pay the other person in compensation for doing that which is rightfully your job.

And yet again, I take care of the oldest 4 evenings a work week and the youngest 2 days during the work week plus every other weekend. Also in the last two years I've lost almost all of my sick leave. Last year alone I spent 8 weeks of sick leave with the kids. I've also taken the oldest on vacation twice in the last 6 months, by myself. I may not take care of them every meal, but I can't now, otherwise I would.

I think this seems to be the problem too, a lot of people just assume the father wants nothing to do with the kids. That's far from the truth. I've asked my wife for extra time with the kids. Hell my oldest is doing a class and I told her I would take her even though it's my 'night off', and she told me no. She wants to take them when it's my time, but if I ask for the same she says no. I spend as much time as I possibly can with the kids. I know there are other fathers that do the same. Yet no matter how many times I have to say it people in this thread say I'm not doing anything for my kids. It's no wonder people give up if that's the kind of crap we have to put up with.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I have never seen a divorce situation where both ex-spouses don't see a drop off in standard of living.

Well, I have. It comes from a couple of things; the desire to keep the children in the same lifestyle, and the possibility of disparate family incomes down the road.

How about this (hypothetical) situation:

Two people with 2 young children. Both professionals, making approx 100K each. 200K household income. It's good money, so the children get the best of daycare/childcare, amounting to 38K/year. The plan is that when they are school age, they will go to the best private schools, which will cost abut 50K/year for the 2 of them. The kids come first.

Now one spouse meets someone at work. Affair and divorce ensue. The kids move in with this spouse, as it is deemed in the best interests of the kids. The other spouse sees the kids as much as is possible, however needs to pay child support. In order to keep the children in the same lifestyle, the non-custodial spouse needs to pay half of the 38K/year, plus other expenses. Let's guess 17K + another 15K. = 32K This leaves them with 100K - Taxes (40%) - 32K = 28K/year to live on. They are single, so they need to move to a smaller place and adjust their lifestyle significantly

The custodial spouse income is 100K - taxes (40%) + 32K = 92K/year. Much of this goes to the children to help maintain the children's lifestyle. They stay in a large house, and have all the things that kids need.

Now picture the future, when the custodial spouse has the new friend move in. New friend makes 75K. Being a good person, this new friend contributes to the household expenses like food, utilities etc. They even help with nice things for the kids, because they like them. The income for this household is now 92K from custodial parent, plus 75K - taxes (40%) = 45K Total 137K

137K is more than 28K

One of these households will suffer a greater degree of lifestyle change than the other.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Now picture the future, when the custodial spouse has the new friend move in.I agree with your general position, as above, but I'm not sure about this particular logic. Because you could also point to a situation where the non-custodial parent has a new friend move in, which would work the other way.

Although you could argue that a non-custodial parent is less able to start a new family, since per my understanding obligations to a new family do not constitute a change in circumstance that would allow a reduction in CS (I'm not sure of this - it's definitely the case in some jurisdictions, but I don't know about all).

But I don't know if this is factual (in terms of likelihood of remarriage). Maybe the non-custodial parent can take up with a woman who is independently wealthy, due to CS payments from her ex-husband. :D

(On another note, though, your numbers in your situation actually underestimate the disparity, since the custodial parent will generally have a lower tax rate, due to the dependents.)

[RTFirefly]

And just a cite for average income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States) in Montgomery county, MD, at $94000, which is what I make.

And for House prices (http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Maryland/Montgomery_County-heat_map/). Of which my house is also middle of the road.

I still resent having people say I make too much money or can't make good financial decisions. The difference is totally different here then a lot of mid America and I know is.Where do you and the ex work? Do you both have to live in Expensive County?

Because I live two counties away from you, and commute to an inside-the-Beltway job. And the Firebug's day care runs ~$8000/year, not $18,000. There's $10K/year savings right there. (And it's a good day care - an 'early learning center' which I don't know whether that means anything official, but they take it seriously; it's not just supervised play all day.)

Double that savings if you can get a refund on the 4 year old's tuition. (I can't believe you had to pay the whole year upfront. You don't even have to do that for college!)

Plus housing's cheaper down here, too.

So, again, do you both have to live in Montgomery County? Because man, that place is killing you. And there are cheaper places to live in the DC area.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I agree with your general position, as above, but I'm not sure about this particular logic. Because you could also point to a situation where the non-custodial parent has a new friend move in, which would work the other way.

Good point - but even without anyone moving in -

Custodial parent - lives in same house, has maintained a degree of stability and a lifestyle close to what was before. (net income before = 60+60 = 120K/year, net income after = 92k/year
Non-custodial parent, has moved into smaller place, net income has dropped from 60K/year to 28K/year.

I agree that the non-custodial parent may be less able to "start again" (Hi, would you like a date? I live in a walk up bachelor suite with 2nd hand furniture, have no car, and spend all of my time either working, commuting or with my kids.") versus "hi would you like date? I live in a nice house with my 2 kids, but I have all my evenings free since the kids are with their other parent a lot - I can pick you up in my new SUV, which is needed to get my kids to and from important events)

[Dangerosa]

Such numbers would of course include my divorce, where I left my wife and she filed the paperwork. I would imagine, though have no evidence, that the majority of divorces are male instigated in the true sense of the word. They certainly have been in my experience.

Mine, too. My husband left me, moved in with his girlfriend and then was SHOCKED to get served divorce papers. Fortunately, not all men are that stupid.

(We didn't have children together, I can make no comments on the fairness of his child support. I will say that in our divorce - although I made twice what he did - he paid me support for five years - the length of the car loan that we took out one month before he packed his bags and the amount of 1/2 the car loan. I got to keep the car, too. He didn't bother to have an attorney. He was also SHOCKED when I closed all our joint credit cards.)

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

(We didn't have children together, I can make no comments on the fairness of his child support. I will say that in our divorce - although I made twice what he did - he paid me support for five years - the length of the car loan that we took out one month before he packed his bags and the amount of 1/2 the car loan. I got to keep the car, too. Having a hard time understanding this. If you had no children, what was the support for? Was it spousal support? (Hard to imagine, if you made twice what he did.)

[villa]

I have never seen a divorce situation where both ex-spouses don't see a drop off in standard of living.

Well, I have. It comes from a couple of things; the desire to keep the children in the same lifestyle, and the possibility of disparate family incomes down the road.

How about this (hypothetical) situation:

Two people with 2 young children. Both professionals, making approx 100K each. 200K household income. It's good money, so the children get the best of daycare/childcare, amounting to 38K/year. The plan is that when they are school age, they will go to the best private schools, which will cost abut 50K/year for the 2 of them. The kids come first.

Now one spouse meets someone at work. Affair and divorce ensue. The kids move in with this spouse, as it is deemed in the best interests of the kids. The other spouse sees the kids as much as is possible, however needs to pay child support. In order to keep the children in the same lifestyle, the non-custodial spouse needs to pay half of the 38K/year, plus other expenses. Let's guess 17K + another 15K. = 32K This leaves them with 100K - Taxes (40%) - 32K = 28K/year to live on. They are single, so they need to move to a smaller place and adjust their lifestyle significantly

The custodial spouse income is 100K - taxes (40%) + 32K = 92K/year. Much of this goes to the children to help maintain the children's lifestyle. They stay in a large house, and have all the things that kids need.

Now picture the future, when the custodial spouse has the new friend move in. New friend makes 75K. Being a good person, this new friend contributes to the household expenses like food, utilities etc. They even help with nice things for the kids, because they like them. The income for this household is now 92K from custodial parent, plus 75K - taxes (40%) = 45K Total 137K

137K is more than 28K

One of these households will suffer a greater degree of lifestyle change than the other.

OK - I am sure it can happen. But even in your later example, you seem to accept that where both remain single, they both suffer a drop in standard of living (one greater than the other).

Which was my point. Certainly if you bring in outside factors, like remarriage for example, or winning the lottery, a person's standard of living may go up after divorce. Mine did, despite paying much higher accomodation costs as well as child support. But ceteris paribus, both parties will see a decline in standard of living after separation.

[Raygun99]

I live well outside Toronto and $600/month day care is a fantasy; $900 is what you'll pay in my suburban town for decent daycare. Nothing special, just a good place. In outlying parts of the City of Toronto it's typically more like $1200-$1300 a month, as my sister is finding out; you're already up to $15K a year right there.

In Calgary as well. We've been researching this and are finding that $850 is probably the best we can do.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Which was my point. Certainly if you bring in outside factors, like remarriage for example, or winning the lottery, a person's standard of living may go up after divorce. Mine did, despite paying much higher accomodation costs as well as child support. But ceteris paribus, both parties will see a decline in standard of living after separation.

Yes, you're absolutely correct - It's a simple fact of life that running two households will lead to less disposable income for both parties. Divorce sucks.

[Dangerosa]

(We didn't have children together, I can make no comments on the fairness of his child support. I will say that in our divorce - although I made twice what he did - he paid me support for five years - the length of the car loan that we took out one month before he packed his bags and the amount of 1/2 the car loan. I got to keep the car, too. Having a hard time understanding this. If you had no children, what was the support for? Was it spousal support? (Hard to imagine, if you made twice what he did.)

It was tagged as spousal support. There was no "entitlement" to it in law, we asked for it, we got it.

It was basically because I got all the joint bills, and he walked away. So he had to pay me so I could pay the bills he left behind.

[Fear Itself]

I don't know the numbers, and I don't think it would be a HUGE discrepancy (maybe 2/3 to 1/2) but I would bet a lot that well over 50% are initiated in that sense by men. Either leaving their wives, or getting caught cheating etc.That's a pretty ambiguous definition if you include getting caught cheating. Is that only behavior that instigates divorce? How about if he drinks too much? Maybe he is too cheap, or is a loud mouthed boor. How about if he is a lousy lover? Works too many hours? Or just about any behavior that the wife doesn't like, then the divorce was instigated by the husband's bad behavior.

Where do you draw the line? I say it is the person who first says "I want a divorce", or words to that effect.

[CaveMike]

So your opinion is that the children's needs should not be prioritized beyond basic food, clothing, and shelter regardless of the means of either parent? (You mentioned only malnutrition, but I am assuming you meant basic necessities.) Perhaps that a parent could provide more support to their children, but they could not be legally compelled?Yes, that's my position.

That also happens to be the prevailing state of affairs for parents who are not divorced. Or for custodial parents who are divorced, for that matter. There's only one exception to this rule.

(I think the "right thing to do" would generally be to treat kids better than that. But I don't think the kids have some inalieable right to any more, or that anything more should be enforced, let alone prioritized over the needs of the parent - who is actually making the money. Again, much as it is with custodial parents.)

[I should note, though, that even if you don't go as far as this position, that doesn't mean that children's needs necessarily come before their parents. You could try to make everyone equal, for example.]If I understand your point correctly it is this: Two married parents can legally agree to provide only the bare minimum to their children. As long as the children are being feed, clothed, housed, and schooled the law won't come after them. With this in mind, you feel that divorced parents should have the same option. If one parent wants the child to have more than the bare necessities, then they are free to provide it, but the other parent is not obligated to chip-in.

With this policy the state would require that a non-custodial parent must provide 50% of the price of what it estimates the bare necessities cost?

[CaveMike]

Consider the opposite case: If your brother's ex was still single, but your brother was remarried -- should his wife's income count towards calculating his contribution?Yes.

If you want to try and confuse me, start mentioning cases where the person is being supported by persons who are not legally joined to them at the hip. Like, say, if the mother was living with her parents (like, uh, my brother is with mine). In that case I would say that the parents' income should not be counted in either case. But marriage? It's all going into the same pot, legally speaking.Thanks for your answer begbert.

FWIW, I wasn't trying to confuse you or trick you. I was just curious how you felt about the opposite case.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Having a hard time understanding this. If you had no children, what was the support for? Was it spousal support? (Hard to imagine, if you made twice what he did.)

It was tagged as spousal support. There was no "entitlement" to it in law, we asked for it, we got it.

It was basically because I got all the joint bills, and he walked away. So he had to pay me so I could pay the bills he left behind.

That's interesting. In the case of the OP, his wife walked away and no one is suggesting that she is therefore responsible for the ongoing bills she left behind. To the contrary, people are suggesting he needs to move out of his (formerly their) house and find a cheaper apartment because he can't afford to make the payments.

OTOH, you say your ex had no lawyer, so maybe he could have done better if he had (which is sad in it's own right).

If I understand your point correctly it is this: Two married parents can legally agree to provide only the bare minimum to their children. As long as the children are being feed, clothed, housed, and schooled the law won't come after them. With this in mind, you feel that divorced parents should have the same option. If one parent wants the child to have more than the bare necessities, then they are free to provide it, but the other parent is not obligated to chip-in.

With this policy the state would require that a non-custodial parent must provide 50% of the price of what it estimates the bare necessities cost?This is my position, except for the 50% number.

The parents have a responsibility to make sure the kids have basic necessities, and the state can enforce this responsibility (whether they're married or not). As to what percentage is provided by which parent, that's something else, and would depend on how much income each parent has, and possibly other factors, as is done now. Typically a non-custodial parent will have more, and should pay more.

[villa]

That's a pretty ambiguous definition if you include getting caught cheating. Is that only behavior that instigates divorce? How about if he drinks too much? Maybe he is too cheap, or is a loud mouthed boor. How about if he is a lousy lover? Works too many hours? Or just about any behavior that the wife doesn't like, then the divorce was instigated by the husband's bad behavior.

Where do you draw the line? I say it is the person who first says "I want a divorce", or words to that effect.

Of course it isn't the only behavior. Which is why I said cheating etc. Now there will be many situations where a divorce is mutual, where the parties are not compatible etc. But it is foolish to suggest that because women file for divorce more often than men this is a sign that women are more responsible for divorce than men. Even if you remove the behavioral aspects, I would think there are plenty of situations like mine where the hsuband intended the marriage to end, started the whole process, but the wife filed for divorce.

[Dangerosa]

That's interesting. In the case of the OP, his wife walked away and no one is suggesting that she is therefore responsible for the ongoing bills she left behind. To the contrary, people are suggesting he needs to move out of his (formerly their) house and find a cheaper apartment because he can't afford to make the payments.

OTOH, you say your ex had no lawyer, so maybe he could have done better if he had (which is sad in it's own right).

And there were no children in my case - big difference. In my case, it was a grown man with no children walking away from bills and responsibilities he'd incurred jointly in marriage.

Him paying for a lawyer would have likely turned out worse for him, since all assets would have likely been sold and debt paid. He didn't have the money to pay for a lawyer. Since we had a negative net worth, he would have ended up in bankruptcy.

I think I said five years, but it was probably three years he was supposed to paid me - $7200 on a convenient payment plan to his ex wife for him to walk away from all his debt (mortgage, car, credit card bills) and his marriage isn't bad. And he stopped paying me a year early and I didn't choose to pursue it as I'd gotten out of debt except for the mortgage by that time.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Of course it isn't the only behavior. Which is why I said cheating etc. Now there will be many situations where a divorce is mutual, where the parties are not compatible etc. But it is foolish to suggest that because women file for divorce more often than men this is a sign that women are more responsible for divorce than men. Even if you remove the behavioral aspects, I would think there are plenty of situations like mine where the hsuband intended the marriage to end, started the whole process, but the wife filed for divorce."Intended the marriage to end" is the important clause here, in the context of this discussion.

Because remember, you're trying to prove that men view divorce as a favorable option, by saying that men initiate divorce (in the meaningful sense of the word). If you're talking about a situation where a guy cheats and/or otherwise acts like a jerk but intends to get away with it and stay married, then he is not initiating divorce for purposes of this point, even if the wife feels that she has no other choice than to get divorced.

[I should also add, BTW, that a lot of men are genuinely unaware of the nature of how the divorce process skews against them and are rudely surprised once it's too late - especially since there's much more media publicity about how the process is harmful to women. By contrast, people with children generally have a pretty good idea of what raising children entails, and are making informed choices.]

And there were no children in my case - big difference. In my case, it was a grown man with no children walking away from bills and responsibilities he'd incurred jointly in marriage.Understood. But the shoe is generally on the other foot (i.e. the wife walking away and having lower income) and this argument does not get invoked. Especially since he paid the bills and you kept the car.

I've never heard of a lower-earning ex-wife paying spousal support to a higher-earning ex-husband just because she's the one who decided to end the marriage.

Him paying for a lawyer would have likely turned out worse for him, since all assets would have likely been sold and debt paid. He didn't have the money to pay for a lawyer. Since we had a negative net worth, he would have ended up in bankruptcy.I'm not sure if this is the same in all states, but generally what the courts do in such cases is make the higher earning spouse pay for the poorer spouse's lawyer. In this case that would amount to you paying for his lawyer.

As part of the recently passed NY no-fault divorce law, it was made a "rebuttable presumption" that the spouse with more money pays the legal fees for the other spouse. This was done to make it easier for women to initiate divorces, since their husbands are forced to pay legal fees for both sides.

[Mama Zappa]

Well, not in the DC area, I couldn't. I'm in different circumstances now, but maybe 10 years ago, that was probably about the amount I had for utilities (in this city, electric, trash, gas, water, sewer is all on the same bill) food, gas, insurances (car, renter's), booze/play, cable/internet, etc. I live in North Florida. It's relatively cheap here. I'm from Ohio, where I could live on $550 a month after rent easily (especially in my hometown). The closer you are to the epicenter of a huge thriving metropolis, the higher the costs of living are going to be.

..I'm just saying. Here we have an OP who makes 100K(ish) a year and he's complaining about how little money he'll have after his kids high-end spendy private schools and his McMansion and the his and hers SUVs are split up. (Okay, you didn't exactly say all that, but y'all are not living in a trailer park on minimum wage working 75 hours a week either.) People make it on that or less. That's all I'm saying. Most people who have to work at McDonald's do not send their children to schools that cost nearly $40K a year. That just sounds like crazy talk to me.

Not possible to relocate and file in Virginia? Do the judges consider actual cost of living in Virginia, unlike MD?

Those schooling prices do sound insane, but other than that, nothing in those figures is all that out of wack. I'm also in the DC area (though in Virginia) and 1600 a month mortgage would get you a fairly basic townhouse and that's about all. Not a McMansion by any means.

Furthermore, 200,000 in household income is not that high. Yeah, it's high enough that in a single household, you'll be living fairly decently (we don't make that much and we're doing OK) - but not exactly jetting off to the Riviera for the weekend.

100,000 -is roughly 8,000 a month. 25% of that is 2,000 which is the recommended mortgage ratio so 1,600 is NOT at all out of line.

For those of you who suggest he consider moving to Virginia: Remember, Virginia is the state where a grandmother got custody of her grandchild because the mother, her daughter, got the gay and therefore was deemed unfit. Dunno how they are, child-support-wise, but they aren't terribly family friendly in my opinion (and I live in Virginia so I'm not just dissing That Other State).

[RTFirefly]

Having spent over 30 years of my life as a legal resident of Virginia, I'm not about to dis it either, but I'm not suggesting he move there. I'd recommend Calvert County, MD for the OP and his ex, if it's within commuting distance of their jobs. Best public schools in the state, outside of Montgomery County, and I've already mentioned that quality day care here is $10K/year cheaper per child than what they're paying now, and that you can get a lot more house for the money out here than in Expensive County. And it's a hell of a nice place, too.

[Dangerosa]

Understood. But the shoe is generally on the other foot (i.e. the wife walking away and having lower income) and this argument does not get invoked. Especially since he paid the bills and you kept the car.

I've never heard of a lower-earning ex-wife paying spousal support to a higher-earning ex-husband just because she's the one who decided to end the marriage.

Sure it does. My brother in law got divorced and that argument was used - unsuccessfully, on him by his ex wife. In a different state - Colorado in that case. But my ex incurred his share of the bills. The other option was to let them go into default and declare bankrupcy. The judge seemed to think it was a fair arrangement. My ex was also fairly anxious for me to refi the house, which was the only way he was coming off the mortgage. Since he couldn't pay closing, and I really didn't care if he was on the loan once he signed the quit claim deed as part of the divorce, that was another point of negotiation for him. If I chose, he'd STILL be on the loan, but not own the house. (He was a bright man...and yet, stupid.)

I'm not sure if this is the same in all states, but generally what the courts do in such cases is make the higher earning spouse pay for the poorer spouse's lawyer. In this case that would amount to you paying for his lawyer.

As part of the recently passed NY no-fault divorce law, it was made a "rebuttable presumption" that the spouse with more money pays the legal fees for the other spouse. This was done to make it easier for women to initiate divorces, since their husbands are forced to pay legal fees for both sides.

Again, that wasn't the case in my brother in law's case, or my uncle's, or my sister's. Each party paid for their own attorney, no matter what the income disparity was. Minnesota and Colorado. My ex did pay for my attorney, but did not bother to get his own. He was a little anxious to clear the way to marry his girlfriend (they are still married) and pretty much said yes to anything I asked for. Its a good thing I'm a reasonable person and was only interested in coming out as whole as possible, or I'd probably still own him.

But all of this is rather immaterial, as we didn't have children and we aren't talking about spousal support (which was what mine was labeled, but everyone knew it wasn't - it was really debt payments, but there isn't a provision in Minnesota divorce law for "I need to pay my ex back.")

[Doxy]

Move to Michigan... the judges there love the daddies!

My ex-husband doesn't have to pay a single dime in support. Ever again.

When I moved to Georgia with the 2 kids, the judge said no more support from Daddy (of course, he was only paying $25/wk per child anyway so it's not like I lost something I depended on to take care of them with.)

But to add insult to injury, I have to buy the kids round trip, non-stop airline tickets twice a year so that he can see them (at $800 each trip)!

This past Labor Day weekend I had to buy HIM a round-trip airline ticket to Georgia, pay for his hotel room for three days and provide him with a mother-loving car!!!

Oh yeah... he is required to provide the kids with medical insurance and pay for half of all uninsured medical/dental costs. Three guesses on whether or not he actually does any of that! :rolleyes:

[BayouHazard]

I fail to see how anyone, male or female, can live just like they do now with half of what they make gone.



To be blunt, you can't.

Can you try to trade in the new SUV for something older and cheaper, or let the bank have it and ride the train? A divorce is going to screw your credit anyway. No insurance, no note=300$ extra a month, right? Or, since you have a 3-bedroom townhome, find a roommate.
Other than that, economize. Thriftstore clothes, watch your money, turn your lights off, cook your own meals, pack your lunch every day, take your kids to do free stuff, learn new Ramen recipes, beans in a crockpot, think about getting a second job or a business you can run on the side.
Most of which I do, except my version involves overtime, attempts at homegrown veggies and home car repair.

[Girl From Mars]

This is based on a 10 year study from the UK (with some European data included) so probably not exactly parallel to the situation in the US (and not intended to be a direct critique of the OP), but it showed that on average women are worse off financially after a divorce:

Divorce makes men - and particularly fathers - significantly richer. When a father separates from the mother of his children, according to new research, his available income increases by around one third. Women, in contrast, suffer severe financial penalties. Regardless of whether she has children, the average woman's income falls by more than a fifth and remains low for many years. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/25/divorce-women-research)

They also said that mothers of young children fared particularly badly after divorce because they found it difficult to juggle work and raise a family. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556706/Women-worse-off-after-divorce.html)

Similar study from Australia:
“In the year immediately after divorce, women’s income declined while men’s stayed the same (after adjusting for changes in household size). While women’s income recovers over time, compared to the incomes of non-divorced women, they are still significantly behind.

Four years after divorce, women experienced a 2.9% increase in income from pre-divorce levels compared to an increase of 12.3% for non-divorced women. For divorced men, income increased by 12.5%. (http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/media/media090708.html)

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I've never heard of a lower-earning ex-wife paying spousal support to a higher-earning ex-husband just because she's the one who decided to end the marriage.Sure it does. My brother in law got divorced and that argument was used - unsuccessfully, on him by his ex wife.I don't understand what you're saying here, as it doesn't sound like you're contradicting me. Who earned less money and paid support to the higher earning spouse in this case?But my ex incurred his share of the bills. The other option was to let them go into default and declare bankrupcy.ISTM that a third option might have been to sell all of it, pay the debt and divide the excess, if any.The judge seemed to think it was a fair arrangement.That's generally the case. Otherwise you wouldn't have won it.If I chose, he'd STILL be on the loan, but not own the house.Why?But all of this is rather immaterial, as we didn't have children and we aren't talking about spousal support (which was what mine was labeled, but everyone knew it wasn't - it was really debt payments, but there isn't a provision in Minnesota divorce law for "I need to pay my ex back.")Actually it seems to me more like division of assets than either spouse support or debt payments. (Unless there were also payments for credit card bill for things that had already been consumed.) I'm not sure I completely understand the situation but it looks like you incurred debt together to buy things and you were awarded the things, and he had to help make the payments for the things which you kept.

In general, it sounds like you seriously crushed your ex-husband in the settlement, but it's unclear to what extent this was based on your gender and to what extent it was based on your ex-husband's foolishness and desperation. (I would guess a mixture of both, particularly as courts tend to be more protective of women and are more likely to save them from their foolishness and desperation, but that's just speculation.)

This is based on a 10 year study from the UK (with some European data included) so probably not exactly parallel to the situation in the US (and not intended to be a direct critique of the OP), but it showed that on average women are worse off financially after a divorce:I've noted such studies earlier. And again, I think they are likely misleading, because they don't account for true net income. It's not even clear in the descriptions of some of these studies whether the statistics they provide whether these stats subtract spousal & child support payments on the one side and add it to the other. But in addition, it appears that they do not account for 1) the fact that poorer women with children tend to be eligible for financial assistance while men are generally not, and 2) the fact that women with children will pay less taxes than single men. These studies need to focus on bottom line net income, and it doesn't appear that they do that.

The more interesting stats are those of the Australian one that looked at measures of hardship and found women (slightly) higher by these measures. But I think these are misleading as well. For one thing, the study focused on the first year, and the fact is that for men their lifestyle generally gets adjusted to their lower income a lot faster than for women. If you get bounced out of your house and go live in a small apartment, you are going to have a easier time of paying the utilities than the one who remained in the more luxurious house and needs to maintain it on a smaller income.

But for another, the study is cooked in that it listed "Asked for help from welfare/community organisations" as one of the measures of hardship. The fact is that welfare/community organizations are heavily geared towards women and children in distress, and if you are a man in similar circumstances as a women you are not nearly as likely to turn to welfare/community organizations. There is no doubt that this particular measure is extremely heavily skewed towards women, and it is not a valid indicator of a true disparity in hardship. This alone renders the entire statistic invalid.

[In general, ISTM that most of these studies are designed to produce the results that they produce, and are intended to influence public thinking on the matter, and are thus skewed - whether consciously or unconsciously - towards methodologies that produce these results.]

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Move to Michigan... the judges there love the daddies!

My ex-husband doesn't have to pay a single dime in support. Ever again.

When I moved to Georgia with the 2 kids, the judge said no more support from DaddyDid you possibly violate any court custody orders by moving to a different state?

[Dangerosa]

In my brother's ex wife's case, he earned more. She wanted support to pay bills she had incurred. Judge told her to take a hike. In my case, I earned more, I wanted support to pay bills HE had incurred, judge agreed with me. No kids, so in her case, judge said she was responsible for her own bills, in my case, judge said he was responsible for his bills, but since he couldn't afford them, he could pay them through a 'support agreement' to me.

No excess, negative net worth, remember. And when I say I out earned him - I made about $18k a year. He worked part time and made less than $10k dependably at that point. We aren't talking lots of income in either case.

Ownership in a house and name on a mortgage are two separate things - you can still be liable for the mortgage but not have your name on the deed to the house. That was the case - he didn't have the income to support the house, I did. We were underwater on it (we'd only owned it about a year), so he signed the deed over to me, I refinanced the house.

And no, taking him to the cleaners would have involved letting him go bankrupt over his debt, keeping him on the mortgage, but getting him off the deed (the divorce decree only had the second, not the first), and making him pay his obligation for the whole term, instead of letting it go after two years when he stopped paying. I didn't get all the assets - although I got the house (underwater with a mortgage) and car (and the car loan - the car was 30 days old when he left), and $200 a month to pay bills mutually incurred. He got half of the furniture, the computer (which was expensive), the stereo (expensive), most of the electronics, almost all our mutual CD and book collection (20 years later and I'm still saying - oh, that's right, i don't have that any more).

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

In my brother's ex wife's case, he earned more. She wanted support to pay bills she had incurred. Judge told her to take a hike.But that's not what we were discussing. We were discussing a lower income ex-wife paying support to a higher-income ex-husband.

In my case, I earned more, I wanted support to pay bills HE had incurred, judge agreed with me.Why were they his bills? It sounds like they were for a car that you kept.

And when I say I out earned him - I made about $18k a year. He worked part time and made less than $10k dependably at that point.That makes more sense. People who work part time sometimes have additional income "imputed" to them in divorce situation.

And no, taking him to the cleaners would have involved letting him go bankrupt over his debt, keeping him on the mortgage, but getting him off the deed (the divorce decree only had the second, not the first)But that itself is odd. (I understand the house was underwater at the time, but the ongoing payments would add equity to the house, and you would receive all that equity, since he was off the deed.)

[BTW, I don't mean to bust your chops over your divorce settlement. It's not a big deal in the context of this discussion. If you don't want to discuss it, or feel you're being hassled about it, we can drop it.]

[Dangerosa]

In my brother's ex wife's case, he earned more. She wanted support to pay bills she had incurred. Judge told her to take a hike.But that's not what we were discussing. We were discussing a lower income ex-wife paying support to a higher-income ex-husband.

Why were they his bills? It sounds like they were for a car that you kept.

That makes more sense. People who work part time sometimes have additional income "imputed" to them in divorce situation.

And no, taking him to the cleaners would have involved letting him go bankrupt over his debt, keeping him on the mortgage, but getting him off the deed (the divorce decree only had the second, not the first)But that itself is odd. (I understand the house was underwater at the time, but the ongoing payments would add equity to the house, and you would receive all that equity, since he was off the deed.)

[BTW, I don't mean to bust your chops over your divorce settlement. It's not a big deal in the context of this discussion. If you don't want to discuss it, or feel you're being hassled about it, we can drop it.]

Well, I was discussing "meeting the obligations you incur" whether that is children or credit card bills.

The bills - the car was what sent me over into "I need help" - but we had credit card bills - for that computer, the stereo, dinners out, our honeymoon....things he kept or things he shared in the enjoyment of at the time. And some of the bills were incurred in the "getting a girlfriend" process. Paying for her gifts and their dates while he was married to me and seeing her behind my back wasn't - understandably - high on my list.

Yep, the equity would build. But at the time, selling the house would have been not a great idea. After the divorce, I made the payments, I got the equity. I also got all the bills, all the taxes, all the repairs. This was the 1988 or so, the house didn't do mad appreciation - and when I sold it in 1997, it really hadn't appreciated much - the new roof I had to put on and the new furnace ate any gain. And I'd been paying a 30 year loan for ten years - most of the payments were still interest.

He could have made other choices. But it wasn't my job to babysit him any longer. I was as fair as I could be while looking out after my own interests. I feel pretty strongly that when you are banging your girlfriend, and you go car shopping with your wife and she says "we can't really afford this" that if you have intentions of leaving in the next few weeks, the answer to that statement is "you are probably right, lets put this off for a bit." Not "sure we can - we can make this work." Once you say "we" can make this work - you're stuck.

And that if you are going to buy presents for said girlfriend at Victoria's Secret, don't be surprised when your wife gets you to pay for some of that in the settlement terms.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

OK, that's a more complete picture than how it was originally presented. Specifically, the credit card bills. Glad it worked out for you. :)

[Girl From Mars]

I've noted such studies earlier. And again, I think they are likely misleading, because they don't account for true net income. It's not even clear in the descriptions of some of these studies whether the statistics they provide whether these stats subtract spousal & child support payments on the one side and add it to the other...These studies need to focus on bottom line net income, and it doesn't appear that they do that.

From the UK study quoted (http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/iser_working_papers/2008-07.pdf), it does very clearly define income as including state benefits and maintenance (support payments):
An individual’s economic circumstances in each year is measured in terms of the equivalized household net income of the household to which the individual belongs. Net income is the sum across household members of income from employment and selfemployment, investments and savings, private and occupational pensions, other market income and private transfers (including maintenance income), plus cash social security and social assistance receipts from the state, less income tax payments, employee National Insurance contributions, and local taxes. Net income is the most widely used income measure in the U.K., and the basis of official income distribution statistics (see e.g. Department for Work and Pensions 2007).

[Dunkelheit]

Where do you draw the line? I say it is the person who first says "I want a divorce", or words to that effect.

Personally, I would say that a divorce is instigated by the person who says either "I'm leaving" or "Get out", regardless of who initiates the legal paperwork.

[Doxy]

Move to Michigan... the judges there love the daddies!

My ex-husband doesn't have to pay a single dime in support. Ever again.

When I moved to Georgia with the 2 kids, the judge said no more support from DaddyDid you possibly violate any court custody orders by moving to a different state?

Nope. Asked the court's permission and everything.

[Doxy]

Where do you draw the line? I say it is the person who first says "I want a divorce", or words to that effect.

Personally, I would say that a divorce is instigated by the person who says either "I'm leaving" or "Get out", regardless of who initiates the legal paperwork.

In my case, I was the one that initiated the legal paperwork.

But he's the one that initiated the divorce.

"How" you ask?

By trolling for "slaves" in online S&M chatrooms and then opting to spend what little money we had on buying these damaged women tickets to come to see him instead of paying our mortgage and business bills.

We lost both our business and our home because he wanted to spank/whip/brand mentally damaged women.

We ended up living with his sister.

I may have filed for divorce, but he's the one that initiated it.

[Captain Midnight]

The wife left you and took the kids. What about trying to get custody of the kids? What right did she have taking the children in the first place? She left you. Unless you beat her, or are doing something illegal in your home, I do not see why you cannot be the guardian of the children and she pays you alimony.

Women do pay men alimony, because I had a friend who had custody of his daughter. I don't understand why the woman wins custody unless there is something wrong with her (like being a drunk, abusive etc.). If you both make a 100K a year, and you have a townhouse, and she left you (which means she broke the contract of marriage), she should be the one out looking for the 1 bedroom with the roommates.

Of course, I don't know you or your situation, and you could have been an insufferable SOB to her. But still, she should have known this before bearing you two children and then deciding at the dawn of her middle age that she needs to go "find herself" and all that, taking your offspring away, with her telling them who knows what about you.

If I may ask, why are you paying $18,000 dollars to send your kid to kindergarten? I mean, I would want the best for my child, but again, 18K to learn her ABC, count to a hundred and fingerpaint. Then you got the other kid in daycare that costs 20K? Where do you live? Are the public schools that you pay taxes to so awful? That frees up $38,000 dollars right there (which could be used for their college fund, or retirement that seems wasted.)

Let's recap....

1.) Take the wife to court. Hire a female attorney to counter any ball buster she has on her side.

2.) Get custody and make her pay the alimony. She left you, and unless you beat her or cheated on her, does not have much of a leg to stand on.

3.) Take your two kids out of those incredibly expensive schools. Save the money for college or other investments.

4.) Keep your house and make her follow up on her decisions to leave you and have her get a crappy apartment with two dirty roommates who can't wash a dish. You stay in the house with your kids, and if mommy gets tired of the bohmian lifestyle, may come back. Even if she discovered she is a lesbian, there is hope.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I've noted such studies earlier. And again, I think they are likely misleading, because they don't account for true net income. It's not even clear in the descriptions of some of these studies whether the statistics they provide whether these stats subtract spousal & child support payments on the one side and add it to the other...These studies need to focus on bottom line net income, and it doesn't appear that they do that.

From the UK study quoted (http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/iser_working_papers/2008-07.pdf), it does very clearly define income as including state benefits and maintenance (support payments):
An individual’s economic circumstances in each year is measured in terms of the equivalized household net income of the household to which the individual belongs. Net income is the sum across household members of income from employment and selfemployment, investments and savings, private and occupational pensions, other market income and private transfers (including maintenance income), plus cash social security and social assistance receipts from the state, less income tax payments, employee National Insurance contributions, and local taxes. Net income is the most widely used income measure in the U.K., and the basis of official income distribution statistics (see e.g. Department for Work and Pensions 2007).To the contrary, per footnote 10 of that study:10 In principle, income gains for separating fathers may be over-estimated, because child support payments are not deducted from my definition of income. However, in practice, the bias is likely to be small: see the sensitivity analysis undertaken by Jarvis and Jenkins (1999).I don't know how that second sentence follows the first - as in the case of the OP, child support payments can be pretty substantial. (In addition, I find it odd that a study author could find a substantial difference between the income "gain" of fathers with children (32%) and those without children (0%) and claim that the impact of child support payments is likely to be small.)

And if child support payments are not deducted from fathers' incomes in this study, it's uncertain whether they are being added it to mothers' incomes either. But in any event, the failure to subtract the payments alone renders that entire study invalid. (It's also unclear with spousal support payments are deducted from fathers' incomes in the study, because although the study mentions adding them to incomes, when discussing deductions is only says "less income tax payments, employee National Insurance contributions, and local taxes".)

It's hard to understand why a study of the financial impact of divorce on men and women would exclude such a blatant on significant factor as child support payments. This type of thing feeds my suspicion that these studies are specifically designed to produce the results that they produce.

(Unless child support is radically different in the UK than it is in the US, and is in fact of minimal impact in the UK. In that case, that study would not be applicable to a discussion of the situation in the US. But my impression is that they're fairly similar.)

[RTFirefly]

By trolling for "slaves" in online S&M chatrooms and then opting to spend what little money we had on buying these damaged women tickets to come to see him instead of paying our mortgage and business bills.

We lost both our business and our home because he wanted to spank/whip/brand mentally damaged women.Lord knows you've got every reason to tear down your husband, who managed to not only involve himself in recurring infidelities, but managed to destroy your house, business, and everything else you'd worked for as well as your marriage in the process.

But there's no need to denigrate the women he involved himself with. People have different kinks, and just because their kinks aren't something you can relate to doesn't make them 'damaged.'

[RTFirefly]

If I may ask, why are you paying $18,000 dollars to send your kid to kindergarten? I mean, I would want the best for my child, but again, 18K to learn her ABC, count to a hundred and fingerpaint. Then you got the other kid in daycare that costs 20K? Where do you live? Are the public schools that you pay taxes to so awful? That frees up $38,000 dollars right there (which could be used for their college fund, or retirement that seems wasted.)It helps to read the thread. The older child won't be in kindergarten until next year. Public preschool isn't universally available, and presumably isn't available in the OP's county.

I'm still astounded by how much day care/preschool costs up his way, which is why I asked the OP if he really needs to live in Montgomery County, which is expensive even by DC area standards.

But to make a more fundamental point:

IMHO, the OP's all mixed up about what he's arguing for and against.

The OP's problem, as I see it, isn't that court-awarded child support amounts are out of control; it's that what he and his wife have to spend to raise their children in Montgomery County is apparently out of control.

The OP might have a good GD argument if he could demonstrate the lack of a connection between the two. But I don't really see an attempt on his part to do so. Quite the opposite - he's defended the necessity of costly expenses up and down the line. He's energetically defending the position that it costs a shitload of money to raise two kids in Montgomery County.

[Edward The Head]

I'm still astounded by how much day care/preschool costs up his way, which is why I asked the OP if he really needs to live in Montgomery County, which is expensive even by DC area standards.

Do I need to live in Montgomery County? Not personally, but my wife will refuse to leave, she's lived here her entire life and wouldn't move. So costs for day care and such will not change. I also wouldn't see my children as much if I moved.

IMHO, the OP's all mixed up about what he's arguing for and against.

The OP's problem, as I see it, isn't that court-awarded child support amounts are out of control; it's that what he and his wife have to spend to raise their children in Montgomery County is apparently out of control.

The OP might have a good GD argument if he could demonstrate the lack of a connection between the two. But I don't really see an attempt on his part to do so. Quite the opposite - he's defended the necessity of costly expenses up and down the line. He's energetically defending the position that it costs a shitload of money to raise two kids in Montgomery County.

Well the reason I talked about my situation so much is because people kept telling me to leave, sell my car, which is paid off, and do other things.

I had thought that I said before that it doesn't matter where in the state of Maryland you live. I know people who work in Allegheny county and make 80-90K a year, where you can buy a house for 100-150k. There may not be as many jobs out there, but they do exist in Cumberland.

So two people live in Allegheny, have jobs that come close to 100k each, that person would pay the same amount of child support as I do even though their cost of living is much much cheaper. That was my point, the cost of living for both parties is not included in anything. There is a set formula that says, one person makes this, the other makes this, child support is this. Period. The amount of day care means nothing so having a family member watch them doesn't change anything.

Actually since you probably make a good living commuting to DC and going home, if you were to pay support for your child you would pay the same if you lived where you do now, or closer to work. Would you move further away to save even more money and not see your child as much?

So again, there is a formula, not based upon anything but income, you pay this, don't care where you live there's no real changing it. You can try and argue in front of the judge, but I've been told that they do not go against the formula.

[Doxy]

By trolling for "slaves" in online S&M chatrooms and then opting to spend what little money we had on buying these damaged women tickets to come to see him instead of paying our mortgage and business bills.

We lost both our business and our home because he wanted to spank/whip/brand mentally damaged women.Lord knows you've got every reason to tear down your husband, who managed to not only involve himself in recurring infidelities, but managed to destroy your house, business, and everything else you'd worked for as well as your marriage in the process.

But there's no need to denigrate the women he involved himself with. People have different kinks, and just because their kinks aren't something you can relate to doesn't make them 'damaged.'


I'm well aware of the women he "played" with, having met several and trust me, they were not "whole" and "healthy" women.
They were damaged people that were being taken advantage of by my ex and others like him.

Acknowledging their damage is not denigrating them.
Branding them like cattle and encouraging non-treatment for their disorder/illness is denigrating them.

I understand the value of healthy role-playing in a relationship.
But, with all due respect to you Sir, I met these particular women. You did not.

Surely you don't think that every single individual involved in BDSM is mentally/emotionally healthy?
Surely you don't believe that they are statistically healthier than the general population?

Using gen pop stats alone, you have a better than 1 in 3 chance of meeting someone with a disorder.

29.9% of all males have been diagnosed with a mental disease/disorder.
And the numbers increase for women to 34.7%.

I don't revile these women. I didn't then and I don't now.
(Although, I can see how you may have misinterpreted my meaning.)
I do, however, pity them and wish they could get the help they need to become healthy.

[RTFirefly]

Surely you don't think that every single individual involved in BDSM is mentally/emotionally healthy?
Surely you don't believe that they are statistically healthier than the general population? No, I don't. Why should I? But OTOH, I don't have reason to think they're way more messed up, either.

Using gen pop stats alone, you have a better than 1 in 3 chance of meeting someone with a disorder.

29.9% of all males have been diagnosed with a mental disease/disorder.
And the numbers increase for women to 34.7%. I think this makes the opposite point: mental disorders are abundant among the general population. If this many of us are messed up, then being messed up is pretty normal.

I'm well aware of the women he "played" with, having met several and trust me, they were not "whole" and "healthy" women.
They were damaged people that were being taken advantage of by my ex and others like him. You're right: I haven't met them, and you have. Still, you did seem to be categorizing them as a class. And unless your ex and others you're aware of forced some of these women into nonconsensual sex or related activities (e.g. branding them against their will), I don't see that he was taking advantage of them, any more than they were using him to fulfill their own fantasies. Per Bob Seger, "I used her, she used me, neither one cared."

[Dangerosa]

Its possible that the OP and his ex feel very strongly that the kids' lives have been upset enough, and changing their daycare, etc. is too much (or even that just his ex feels that way, but the judge agrees with her). Change can be really hard on kids, divorce is hard on kids and one of the things settlements try and do is to limit the extent of disruption.

[RTFirefly]

So again, there is a formula, not based upon anything but income, you pay this, don't care where you live there's no real changing it. You can try and argue in front of the judge, but I've been told that they do not go against the formula.So what you're saying is that the formula might be perfectly appropriate for Montgomery County, but would be out of whack for Garrett County?

That's orthogonal to the claim of your thread title.

[you with the face]

So two people live in Allegheny, have jobs that come close to 100k each, that person would pay the same amount of child support as I do even though their cost of living is much much cheaper. That was my point, the cost of living for both parties is not included in anything.

But childcare in Allegheny is not likely to be as high as in MoCo. You said yourself in the OP that your support is going towards that, so clearly there's more going on here than a crude formula based solely on income. Also, you're also subsidizing your children's housing, which is going to be higher in MoCo.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

But the point is that he is going to be paying the same money anyway, regardless of where it's going. If child care and housing are cheaper elsewhere, then he would pay the same money and the excess would be used for other things.

The only one who stands to gain - in this regard - by moving to a cheaper county is the ex-wife, and she is not interested, for personal reasons. And in any event, the issue is not especially relevant to this thread, which is from the perspective of the OP, not the ex-wife.

If the ex-wife came in and started a thread about how she can't survive on so little CS, people can tell her how she should move to an area where child care expenses are lower. But she's not here. Repeatedly haranguing the OP about how his ex-wife can save herself some money on child care is pointless, and irrelevant to issue that was raised in this thread.

[even sven]

What image comes to your head when you hear "single parent?"

You picture crappy apartments, coupon-cutting, second hand clothes, etc. right?

You are a single parent. You are a single non-custodial parent, but you are a single parent all the same. Being broke is what single parents do. You gave up your right to spend your money as you wish when you had kids. Things will be unpleasant or inconvenient for you now, because you are broke. Do you think you are the first person on earth to find themselves living below the average lifestyle for their area? You make things work. I promise you there are people living happy and meaningful lives in Montgomery County right now on much less than your after-child-support income.

If you were unable to afford your health insurance, or having to move back in with your parents, or selling off pieces of furniture to make rent, I think people would give you a lot more sympathy. But stuff like getting a roommate, finding cheaper entertainment or moving to a less convenient part of town are the normal everyday things that normal everyday single people do. This is not exceptional hardship, this is normal.

I live in the DC area, and my peer group is mid 20's to early 30's professionals. I don't know a single unmarried person who does not live in shared housing. Nobody I know has their own apartment, much less their own townhouse with multiple unoccupied rooms. I don't know anyone who lives in a "nice area." Either they live in somewhat downscale gentrifying areas like Q Street, or they live in cheap-but-far places like Falls Church VA. Everyone has had to give up some safety or convenience. Yes, normal people commute. It's not unheard of. Only a couple of people in my peer group has cars. Most can afford some indulgences, but when they indulge they try to keep costs down- e.g. going to happy hour rather than regular bars.

This is not unheard of! This is how normal people in expensive cities live! Heck, at least you get the benefit of having a kid who presumably will be there for you as you get older. My friends live with roommates, etc. just to get by.

You said in the OP that you are unable to have a life, going to retire with nothing, being driven into the poorhouse, "a paper bled dry," etc. That simply isn't true. You are having to make some large but not unheard of lifestyle adjustments. Welcome to the world that the vast majority of us live in. I promise you, you'll live.

[Damuri Ajashi]

You say you earn 100k/yr but only get $2050 every two weeks? Something does not add up.

After taxes, health insurance, 401K, etc. a $2000 paycheck sounds about right.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Unless that preschool has Intro to Neurosurgery on its curriculum, $18k sounds pretty absurd.

That's about what it costs for young kids around here.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Dogzilla, you can live off of $550 a month after rent? How do you pay electric, which averages around $100 a month for me, water, HOA, car insurance etc. We have to do a worksheet here and with nothing else I'm in the hole by a couple of hundred every month.


:: sheepish ::

Well, not in the DC area, I couldn't. I'm in different circumstances now, but maybe 10 years ago, that was probably about the amount I had for utilities (in this city, electric, trash, gas, water, sewer is all on the same bill) food, gas, insurances (car, renter's), booze/play, cable/internet, etc. I live in North Florida. It's relatively cheap here. I'm from Ohio, where I could live on $550 a month after rent easily (especially in my hometown). The closer you are to the epicenter of a huge thriving metropolis, the higher the costs of living are going to be.

However, moving to a rural small town isn't necessarily the answer either because then the commuting costs outweigh the savings in other costs.

I'm just saying. Here we have an OP who makes 100K(ish) a year and he's complaining about how little money he'll have after his kids high-end spendy private schools and his McMansion and the his and hers SUVs are split up. (Okay, you didn't exactly say all that, but y'all are not living in a trailer park on minimum wage working 75 hours a week either.) People make it on that or less. That's all I'm saying. Most people who have to work at McDonald's do not send their children to schools that cost nearly $40K a year. That just sounds like crazy talk to me.

Not possible to relocate and file in Virginia? Do the judges consider actual cost of living in Virginia, unlike MD?


I don't really empathize with the OP but the 18K he is spending on child care isn't some fancy private school.

[Green Cymbeline]

Either they live in somewhat downscale gentrifying areas like Q Street, or they live in cheap-but-far places like Falls Church VA.Off topic, but I just wanted to say that Falls Church is in no way CHEAP. It is a very nice area and rents and home prices are pretty high. It is also not far away from DC. There's a Metro stop there and it only takes about 15 minutes to get to DC via car or Metro.

[villa]

There's a Metro stop there and it only takes about 15 minutes to get to DC via car or Metro.

If you can drive to DC in 15 minutes from Falls Church at any time of day when a person is likely to have to be going to work, I will tip my hat to you.

[BlinkingDuck]

[




What does the live-in boyfriend's income have to do with anything? They are not his kids.

I take issue with this. If a man (or a woman) moves into a household with children, they are making a commitment to those kids. It doesn't matter who the genetic father is - it's about the kids. The whole point to child support is to make sure the children's lifestyle and care is not unduly damaged by divorce. If another man or woman comes into the picture and takes on a parental role, that should let the original parent at least partially off the hook.

To me, the unfair situations occur when one spouse remarries and returns to the kind of family income that was enjoyed before the divorce, while the other parent is bled dry with his or her money becoming extra income for the other family. This is damaging in a number of ways. First, I think it's unjust. But second, if one parent is now living on half an income while the other is living on two and a half incomes, the standard of living disparity can grow large, which can affect how the children relate to the parents.

And it cuts both ways - if the kids actually like the poorer parent (or dislike the new mom/dad), then they'll come to see the setup as being unjust, and grow to resent the custodial parent.

To me, a man moving into a family household and living free while someone else pays the bills is just as much a freeloader as a deadbeat dad who skips out on the kids. If it were me, I wouldn't care what the law said - if I took on someone else's kids as my own, I would not expect the ex-husband to pay for the kids any more, other than whatever costs he incurs when they are in his custody.

While I understand that you truely think this way...I have to vehemently disagree with you here. The new guy moving in...those are not his kids,. Those kids will not view him as their father...because they already HAVE a father. Even if he was to marry their mother he would still not their father. If the mother dies and this guy finds himself old and destitute needing an old folks home...those kids will not consider it their responsibility because, well, he's not their father. If his wife dies and his parents in law die do you think he will get a cent from their will? The only thing he will get is lots of legalese to make sure he doesn't get a cent or 'profit' in any way. If his wife dies and he has adult children...he will get pressure because he 'really' doesn't own half the house and the kids should get it right now.

He is not a full part of the family. He is a fifth wheel.

No, Sam, the new guy is not their dad. What you wish to do is force the 'bad' half of the parenting onto him but he gets little of the good. If he wishes to help the kids then good for him. However, the main responsibility is on the bio dad even if the new guy makes $200k a year and the bio dad flips burgers at McDonalds.

Unless the guy is older and children are grown, any guy should think twice before moving in/marrying a divorced mom.

[even sven]

Off topic, but I just wanted to say that Falls Church is in no way CHEAP. It is a very nice area and rents and home prices are pretty high. It is also not far away from DC. There's a Metro stop there and it only takes about 15 minutes to get to DC via car or Metro.

Well, whatever. Choose a place that you consider cheap and far. I chose Falls Church because I have friends there that have a nice two bedroom in a generic apartment complex for less than I pay for my "full of character" one bedroom basement apartment. The trade-off is that they are not walking distance from metro and getting into the city is kind of a pain in the butt. Not a huge dealbreaking pain in the butt, but enough to discourage you from popping over to Dupont for a couple drinks.

[even sven]

Unless the guy is older and children are grown, any guy should think twice before moving in/marrying a divorced mom.

Yeah! Sure, you may love her and care about her, but why would you want to get involved in a used-up damaged goods woman like that?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

But stuff like getting a roommate, finding cheaper entertainment or moving to a less convenient part of town are the normal everyday things that normal everyday single people do. This is not exceptional hardship, this is normal.

I live in the DC area, and my peer group is mid 20's to early 30's professionals. I don't know a single unmarried person who does not live in shared housing. Nobody I know has their own apartment, much less their own townhouse with multiple unoccupied rooms. I don't know anyone who lives in a "nice area."I know a LOT of people in that age group who live a whole lot better than that. The vast majority, in fact. Maybe you hang with a down-at-the-heels crowd. Or perhaps you know a lot of people who are going for extended educations or just beginning their careers and are looking to make a whole lot more income once they get established. Whereas the OP has apparently already established himself and is now staring down the barrel of 15 years of child-support induced poverty.

But that's not even the real issue. There are a lot of people who are suffering, but that's not any reason to make any particular individual suffer. The question - again - is the OP's lifestyle versus that of his ex-wife and children. Does he need to be reduced to poverty so that his ex-wife and children can make minimal sacrifice (if any at all)? Or is the pain more evenly spread? Your tales of suffering by your friends does not address that issue at all.

He is not a full part of the family. He is a fifth wheel.

No, Sam, the new guy is not their dad. What you wish to do is force the 'bad' half of the parenting onto him but he gets little of the good. If he wishes to help the kids then good for him. However, the main responsibility is on the bio dad even if the new guy makes $200k a year and the bio dad flips burgers at McDonalds.I would say there's some middle ground here.

The guy is part of the new family and they are all going to live the same lifestyle. If there is a family trip to Disneyland, they are all going. If they move to a nicer house, they all come along. If they buy nice food, they all eat.



That said, I don't think the new guy should have any financial [I]responsibility to the step-kids. So the way I look at it is like this:

If you buy into the notion - as I do, as above - that the father's responsibility is only to maintain a basic standard of living, then I think his financial obligation is completely unaffected by any new step-parent. But if you say he needs to sacrifice so that the kids keep the same standard of living as they had pre-divorce, then I don't think you can ignore that the kids have managed to come by that same standard of living by other means. You can't say the kids' standard of living outweighs all other fairness considerations if they are going to have the same standard of living anyway.

[villa]

Not a huge dealbreaking pain in the butt, but enough to discourage you from popping over to Dupont for a couple drinks.

I'd have thought that every bar in Dupont being in D.C. would be sufficient to discourage one from popping over there for a couple of drinks in and of itself.

[even sven]

But that's not even the real issue. There are a lot of people who are suffering, but that's not any reason to make any particular individual suffer. The question - again - is the OP's lifestyle versus that of his ex-wife and children.

For God's sake, I'm not talking about people suffering! I'm talking about perfectly ordinary people living enjoyable, meaningful, and successful lives.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

For God's sake, I'm not talking about people suffering! I'm talking about perfectly ordinary people living enjoyable, meaningful, and successful lives.That's very nice.

But for some reason, when it comes to the ex-wife and children, they apparently can't live enjoyable, meaningful and successful lives on anything close to that amount. No, they will suffer a lot unless they have the ex-wife's complete $100K income plus $27.6K tax free from the ex-husband.

The discrepancy is the problem.

[WhyWhyWhy]

>>The whole point to child support is to make sure the children's lifestyle and care is not unduly damaged by divorce.<<

Why not?

If the economy takes a hit, children's lifestyles may suffer. If a parent dies or becomes ill, lifestyle suffers. If the cable goes out during a thunderstorm, the children's lifestyle may suffer.

What is wrong with having an elastic lifestyle? That is life.

[Green Cymbeline]

I live in the DC area, and my peer group is mid 20's to early 30's professionals. I don't know a single unmarried person who does not live in shared housing. Nobody I know has their own apartment, much less their own townhouse with multiple unoccupied rooms. I don't know anyone who lives in a "nice area."I know a LOT of people in that age group who live a whole lot better than that. The vast majority, in fact. Maybe you hang with a down-at-the-heels crowd. Or perhaps you know a lot of people who are going for extended educations or just beginning their careers and are looking to make a whole lot more income once they get established.Not really on topic, but I want to add that I, too, have lived in my own apartments in nice areas in Northern Virginia in my mid-late-20s and early 30s. They weren't the most spacious or luxurious apartments (both post-WWII buildings) but in nice areas (Falls Church, Alexandria & Arlington).

If you can drive to DC in 15 minutes from Falls Church at any time of day when a person is likely to have to be going to work, I will tip my hat to you.Yes, when I lived in FC, I made it to Georgetown every morning in about 15 minutes. It took even less time to get into the city during non-rush hour. But generally you're right, from most parts of FC, it may take a little longer. I just lived in a convenient place.

[SciFiSam]

How many bedrooms do you have? 2 or 3? 1400 sq ft means nothing to me, I'm afraid.

I understand wanting to give your kids a proper place to stay when they're with you - that is better for them - but maybe it would be best to get a room-mate just for the next year. Your costs will go down hugely after that, after all, and then in 3 years' time they'll go down even more. The payments will be easier to stomach when you remind yourself they're not forever.

FWIW, I completely disagree with those saying 'go for 50/50 childcare or you're a bad parent.' Even if both parents can arrange their work schedules to accommodate childcare, and both parents live close enough to the child's school (which doesn't happen that often), it's often better for the kid to have one stable home rather than flipping between two homes every other day.

Yes, it's important for the kid to see their parents regularly, but it's also important for them to be able to maintain friendships, not have to commute a ridiculous distance, have things like pets and toys that they can regularly access, go to out of school activities, and generally feel like they have their own home.


(Unless child support is radically different in the UK than it is in the US, and is in fact of minimal impact in the UK. In that case, that study would not be applicable to a discussion of the situation in the US. But my impression is that they're fairly similar.)

It is. There's no specific formula which says the non-custodial parent has to pay a specific amount - it's decided on a case-by case basis every time. It would never amount to half the non-custodial parent's income.

Add to that the fact that there are no tax deductions for having children, health insurance is a luxury, not a necessity, and the state provides a lot of free daycare from the age of 3 regardless of income (plus income-dependant help with childcare costs up till the age of 11), and the financial situation is so different that I'm not sure those cites are very meaningful.

Multi-quite seems not to be working, but to the person who 'did the math' and worked out that the OP's ex will be better off financially, there was an assumption that the ex-wife won't have increased costs; she does, though - she now has to pay the entire mortgage and utility costs for a family home.

[GiantRat]

$38000 a year for pre-school/daycare? Can't you hire a live-in tutor for less than that?

I wonder about that number as well. :confused:

I make exactly $100k/yr and my take home is under $50k. Welcome to the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic (US). 38% Federal tax, plus state and municipal taxes are the leading cause of anal fissures.

[Omar Little]

I wonder about that number as well. :confused:

I make exactly $100k/yr and my take home is under $50k. Welcome to the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic (US). 38% Federal tax, plus state and municipal taxes are the leading cause of anal fissures.

You must also be including deductions for 401k, health insurance and other benefits. That 38% federal tax is really only 35% until the tax increases go into effect and it's not a flat tax on the total $100k, its a tiered tax. Even if you file as married filing separately (the highest brackets) and no dependents, your effective federal tax on $100k is only 19.5%.

[Aw Hamburgers!]

What image comes to your head when you hear "single parent?"

You picture crappy apartments, coupon-cutting, second hand clothes, etc. right?

You are a single parent. You are a single non-custodial parent, but you are a single parent all the same. Being broke is what single parents do. You gave up your right to spend your money as you wish when you had kids. Things will be unpleasant or inconvenient for you now, because you are broke. Do you think you are the first person on earth to find themselves living below the average lifestyle for their area? You make things work. I promise you there are people living happy and meaningful lives in Montgomery County right now on much less than your after-child-support income.

If you were unable to afford your health insurance, or having to move back in with your parents, or selling off pieces of furniture to make rent, I think people would give you a lot more sympathy. But stuff like getting a roommate, finding cheaper entertainment or moving to a less convenient part of town are the normal everyday things that normal everyday single people do. This is not exceptional hardship, this is normal.

I live in the DC area, and my peer group is mid 20's to early 30's professionals. I don't know a single unmarried person who does not live in shared housing. Nobody I know has their own apartment, much less their own townhouse with multiple unoccupied rooms. I don't know anyone who lives in a "nice area." Either they live in somewhat downscale gentrifying areas like Q Street, or they live in cheap-but-far places like Falls Church VA. Everyone has had to give up some safety or convenience. Yes, normal people commute. It's not unheard of. Only a couple of people in my peer group has cars. Most can afford some indulgences, but when they indulge they try to keep costs down- e.g. going to happy hour rather than regular bars.

This is not unheard of! This is how normal people in expensive cities live! Heck, at least you get the benefit of having a kid who presumably will be there for you as you get older. My friends live with roommates, etc. just to get by.

You said in the OP that you are unable to have a life, going to retire with nothing, being driven into the poorhouse, "a paper bled dry," etc. That simply isn't true. You are having to make some large but not unheard of lifestyle adjustments. Welcome to the world that the vast majority of us live in. I promise you, you'll live.

No offense, but I don't see why you feel the need to judge the OP and criticize him for his lifestyle because you live a completely different life than him with a lot more freedom with your time and spending habits.

He is in his 40s with two young children. You are in your mid-late 20s, unmarried with no children and you're criticizing him for not living off $500 a month? What high horse do you live on where you can judge without having an inkling of what he is are going through? You are complaining about living off $410 a month after rent, but try to raise TWO CHILDREN with just $90 more a month. I really hope by the time you and your friends are 40, you will not be living in a group home, or a basement apartment with two young children to take care of. Hopefully, by then, you all will be successful, making 94K a year (like the OP) and have money for basic things like housing, taking the kids out and a vacation every now and then.

BTW, I'm a 26 yr old that lives in DC. What is this mythical, gentifying Q street neighborhood you're talking about? Do you mean the H street corridor? Newsflash: that area is still pricey! I'm condo shopping at the moment, and you can't anything around there for under 300K, and thats not including the private schools you'd have to send your kids to since public schools in DC are terrible, and the fact there is no Metro stop out there.

And people who keep saying he should cut back on retirement... are you nuts? Retirement is the #1 thing people should be saving for and on top of that, I'm sure he's saving for his kids college as well. Sure, he can not chip in on his retirement but then his kids will be forced to foot the bill to take care of him when he's old. WHY AREN'T YOU THINKING ABOUT THE CHILDEN?! :rolleyes:

[even sven]

He can live however he wants, but to say he has "no life" and can't possibly raise his kids in a reasonable manner because he only has 100k a year is borderline insulting to the 94% of Americans (some of whom are in the DC area) and the everyday single mothers (average income $26,000) who somehow manage to live on less than that.

[Aw Hamburgers!]

He can live however he wants, but to say he has "no life" and can't possibly raise his kids in a reasonable manner because he only has 100k a year is borderline insulting to the 94% of Americans (some of whom are in the DC area) and the everyday single mothers (average income $26,000) who somehow manage to live on less than that.


I think the initial OP was complaining about although he has his kids more tha 50% of the week, he still has to fork over 50% of his monthly income to pay child support. The initial rant wasn't, "oh I make 100K a year and I can't raise my kids." It was "I see my kids all the time, and just because they can't spend the night at my house I am forced to give up 50% of my paycheck."

And yes, single mothers do live on much less than 100K a year and what quality of life are they able to provide for their children? I was raised by a single mom in Southern California back on 36K 1998 dollars and it still was a struggle and I missed out on a lot of opportunities my friends who had dual-incomes got to partake in. It sucked. Here's a guy who worked hard to make a decent income and wants to give nothing but the best for his children, and he's criticized for sending his kids to private school instead of public school? He's criticized for living in a townhome in a nice neighborhood instead of moving to a probably less safe neighborhood which would be cheaper? What's wrong with you people?

[SciFiSam]

Nitpicks: He's not sending them to private school instead of public school; the private school is just a better form of daycare till the child's old enough for public school. And he doesn't have them for more than 50% of the week.

[manson1972]

I don't really post that much here, but I am divorced in Maryland, like the OP. I have 2 children and pay $1095 a month for child support, which is fine with me - they are my children after all :)

I have comparable income to the OP, however the child support was based on my ex making minimum wage, so there is some disparity in the calculations. I do feel for the OP as well, and I am glad he is seeing his children as much as he can, and the fact that his ex lets him.

While the OP does certainly pay a lot, it looks like the main factor in the payment amounts is the price of the schools he is sending his children to. $38K a year is $3166 a month, which means the OP's share is $1583 a month BEFORE any support for housing/food/clothes, etc.

If you run the calculations for Maryland with just incomes, and no money for schools, the OP would be paying around $900 a month for support.

So, while I feel for the OP and hope he makes it through this, the OP would owe $1583 a month just for his children's school, for his share of it. Just remember, if the kids go to a cheaper and/or free school at some time in the future, you can always try to get your support payments lowered.

[Edward The Head]

I don't really post that much here, but I am divorced in Maryland, like the OP. I have 2 children and pay $1095 a month for child support, which is fine with me - they are my children after all :)

I have to assume that your children are older then mine and not in daycare.

I have comparable income to the OP, however the child support was based on my ex making minimum wage, so there is some disparity in the calculations.

I think you've missed something, as of today October 1st, the child support laws have changed. I wouldn't let your ex know as yours may very well go up.

While the OP does certainly pay a lot, it looks like the main factor in the payment amounts is the price of the schools he is sending his children to. $38K a year is $3166 a month,

I think a lot of people have missed something, yes the 'private school' is a better day care, but it costs almost exactly the same, within a few hundred dollars. However that is NOT apart of my child support because it was paid up front. So I'm only paying for ONE day care.

If you run the calculations for Maryland with just incomes, and no money for schools, the OP would be paying around $900 a month for support.

I can tell you that this is not the case. Trust me I've been over the numbers with my lawyer. The online calculators are usually wrong, and as I said the new laws have changed as of today.

So, while I feel for the OP and hope he makes it through this, the OP would owe $1583 a month just for his children's school, for his share of it.

This will happen in three years, and by $700 or so. Because my wife makes more then me she pays a bit more then 50% for day care. Again the other school/day care has been paid for. It never has been, nor will be apart of the support.

[even sven]

Here's a guy who worked hard to make a decent income and wants to give nothing but the best for his children, and he's criticized for sending his kids to private school instead of public school? He's criticized for living in a townhome in a nice neighborhood instead of moving to a probably less safe neighborhood which would be cheaper? What's wrong with you people?

He's not criticized for making these choices. He is reminded that these are indeed choices and there are existant- though perhaps not ideal- other options. Furthermore, making choices that involve a bit of sacrifice for the sake of your kids is not some great unprecedented thing that's totally unreasonable to expect.

These are choices that he is damn lucky he gets to make...most single parents don't get to decide if it is more important for them to have a high standard of living or a bit more financial wiggle room...they don't get either one of those. In short, don't tell me you are living on the edge when "on the edge" means you might have to get a roommate, and you are not interested in exploring the myriad of other options that might prevent that horrible fate.

I'll never be a fan of the "100k just doesn't go as far as it used to" argument.

[villa]

Yes, when I lived in FC, I made it to Georgetown every morning in about 15 minutes. It took even less time to get into the city during non-rush hour. But generally you're right, from most parts of FC, it may take a little longer. I just lived in a convenient place.

I am seriously impressed. What time of the morning was that? I travel from Del Ray to Metro Center and it is pretty much at least 40 minutes every morning. The again, half that time at least is from the 14th Street bridge to the parking lot, so if you are going to Georgetown you might be avoiding much of the inside DC gridlock (depending on where in Georgetown you are coming from).

[manson1972]

Well, i'm not looking to argue or whatever, and also thanks for the heads up on the new laws. So as I understand it, you currently pay $20,000 a year for day care? so that's around $850 a month for your share, correct?

And the online calculator on Maryland's Human resources page, which clearly states it is using the new laws, says around $1500 a month for your share, NOT counting any day care or schools. so that leaves you with $2350 or so a month.

I'm not saying it doesn't suck, because it does. but it doesn't look like it is an out of whack amount, but it IS a lot.

by the way, reducing the amount I put into retirement was the first thing I had to do, and drastically reduce my spending throughout each month, and keep my old car that was paid off.

I feel for you, i really do, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I hope it works out for you, and as I said, I'm happy you get to see your children as much as you do.

[Damuri Ajashi]

He can live however he wants, but to say he has "no life" and can't possibly raise his kids in a reasonable manner because he only has 100k a year is borderline insulting to the 94% of Americans (some of whom are in the DC area) and the everyday single mothers (average income $26,000) who somehow manage to live on less than that.

The average family income in this area is below 100K/year.

[Edward The Head]

Well, i'm not looking to argue or whatever, and also thanks for the heads up on the new laws. So as I understand it, you currently pay $20,000 a year for day care? so that's around $850 a month for your share, correct?

Pretty much yes. It's 750-800 I owe a month.


And the online calculator on Maryland's Human resources page, which clearly states it is using the new laws, says around $1500 a month for your share, NOT counting any day care or schools. so that leaves you with $2350 or so a month.

So the $1500+$800=$2300, which is what I originally said. (I think) I get left with $2100 or so, but $1600 is for the house. I know people tell me to move, but unless I move to a different place with one bedroom, in which case the kids may not be able to stay with me, I'm still only down to $1200 a month in rent. If I refinance I can be down to almost that.

by the way, reducing the amount I put into retirement was the first thing I had to do, and drastically reduce my spending throughout each month, and keep my old car that was paid off.

I've already reduced my retirement, and stopped putting in $110 a month, but only got an extra $70. That's $40 a month I'm losing right there. My car, which was cheaper then most cars, is paid off. I don't know why some people keep bringing it up.

I feel for you, i really do, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I hope it works out for you, and as I said, I'm happy you get to see your children as much as you do.

I'm actually seeing my kids more now, I pick the oldest one up 4 times a week, and see them 3 times a week now instead of two.

How did you get the online calculator to work? When I entered my amounts it said it was too much. Do you have a link?

[manson1972]

I wasn't bringing up the car thing as against you, just stating some things that I had to do.

If you put 100K for you and your ex in, you are right, it says "too much, consult your lawyer" but I just lowered the amounts by enough to get a rough estimate.

And you are right, my kids are 7 and 6 and in school that is free now, so I don't have day care and such to worry about.

Anyway, hang in there, it will get better.

[manson1972]

Also, to the people who think the OP shoulda "manned up" or whatever and fought for custody, i do believe he is thinking of what's best for all involved, and NOT just him.

I had custody of mine at first, but I spent 12 hours a day working and commuting. 12 hours which they had to spend in day care every day of the week. It just seemed to be better for them to stay with their mother and other family instead of day care. Plus, i am in the military and actually in Saudi Arabia right now for 2 years, so they are even better off now then they would be if I had fought for custody.

[astro]

I live in Maryland and paid child support for 14 years for 2 kids. I think you might want to re-read the guidelines linked below as your (or your attys) math doesn't sound quite right for shared custody given your wife's income.

http://www.dhr.state.md.us/csea/download/worksheet_b.pdf

I understand your situation, but the reality you face is that you are going to have to substantially downscale your standard of living from where you are now. You will have to sell your house, and you will have to give up your 401K.All these things you are used to, and which you see as non-negotiable lifestyle requirements, are going to be in play whether you like it or not.

[Muffin]

Anyone know the name of the woman who set up child support guidelines in a lot of US states -- sort of like a Johnny Appleseed of child support guidelines. Yes, this is a serious question.

[astro]

Anyone know the name of the woman who set up child support guidelines in a lot of US states -- sort of like a Johnny Appleseed of child support guidelines. Yes, this is a serious question.

Here is a fairly good history of the evolution of US child support standards. It's actually quite interesting reading. There is no one person listed in it as the main impetus for defining child support guideline standards. Possibly the references list at the end has the person you seek.


A BRIEF HISTORY OF PREVAILING CHILD SUPPORT DOCTRINE (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fam11.htm)
By Roger Gay, Independent Research Consultant

[Edward The Head]

I live in Maryland and paid child support for 14 years for 2 kids. I think you might want to re-read the guidelines linked below as your (or your attys) math doesn't sound quite right for shared custody given your wife's income.


Or you didn't read everything. The new guidelines went into effect today. My old payments would have been in the $900 range without the daycare, the current guidelines is now $1600 for me. Why would my lawyer screw me over?

[Muffin]

Here is a fairly good history of the evolution of US child support standards. It's actually quite interesting reading. There is no one person listed in it as the main impetus for defining child support guideline standards. Possibly the references list at the end has the person you seek.


A BRIEF HISTORY OF PREVAILING CHILD SUPPORT DOCTRINE (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fam11.htm)
By Roger Gay, Independent Research ConsultantThanks, astro. It was the Family Support Act 1988 (Regan's general welfare reform act) that was behind her doing the Johnny Appleseed thing with guidelines throughout many states. Darned if I can recall her name.