Child Support...basis for Class Action Suit?

[Rysdad]

In my state (MN) child support is based solely on the income of the non-custodial parent. Isn't that a violation of equal protection under the law? The custodial parent could remarry, inherit a windfall and hit the lottery, but the support required from the non-custodial parent would be unaffected.
(Before I'm toasted with flames, let me say that I'm fully involved in my son's life. I pay my support, and I have him half the time.)
I pay 25% of my net towards his support. This doesn't include health insurance and day care, which I'm also required to pay.
Back to the subject. The way I figure it, I pay 100% of his support when he's with my ex-wife AND 100% of his support while he's with me.
It seems to me that I'm being penalized without committing a crime--a violation of due process. Doesn't this seem like a reasonable basis for a class action suit since there are thousands of other NC parents in the same boat?

A "class-action" lawsuit? Against whom? For what?

Because the laws of your state require you pay child support? Puh-leeze. You sired a child and you have the responsibility to support him or her. You're not being "penalized" in any sense of the word, you're simply being required to fulfill the social obligation having a child quite naturally encumbers you with.

Kwitcherbitchin and give the kid the dough.

[Note: This message has been edited by Nickrz]

[Rysdad]

I had thought that the suit would be brought against the state itself. If the state is the one imposing the excessive/punitive penalty, then the state is in violation of its own Constitution.

[Rysdad]

BTW...I stated that I do pay the support. I'm simply saying that the support is based solely on my income without taking into account the income of the payee.

[lvick]

Nick
That's a little out of line for a moderator in their own forum, I think. Joint custody means joint responsibility. If the OP is, as he claims, paying ALL the bills, he has a legitimate complaint,
Larry

[Manda JO]

Remember, If the wife remarries money, that money may well not be willing to support her child from a previous marrige. I know of one couple where the husband was very careful to make sure the the wife paid for her children's allowances, clothes, etc out of her own incopme (they both made a healthy living and had seperate accounts).
The thing w/ the paying while your son is with you is annoying, I know, but some of that is valid. Your son continues to cost your exwife money even when spending a summer with you. I mean, she can't sell the house and move into the one bedroom apartment she would live in if she were on her own just for the summer. And she may well buy him a load of clothes a month or two before sending him to you. Child support is not meant to equal monthly expenses--children don't work that way. Think of it instead as payments on an annual childcare bill.
Thirdly, if your son were living with you, you would still be spending a quater of your income on him--it would just be in smaller, less painful pieces.
All of this is assuming that your exwife is in fact useing the money on the boy. Sometimes it is hard to tell, because "on the boy" is a bit subjective: does rent count? cable? Now, if you feel that the child's needs are not being met, (food, shelter, clothes) and that they could be from the ammount of money you send, then I would get a lawyer to speak to your exwife, not the state. One the other hand, if the exwife really is fully capable of supporting the boy, and you feel that your monthly check is being wasted on frivolities that no one needs,(and y'all are on speaking terms), you might suggest that the two of you put your monthly check into college fund. That way, the boy's needs are met, your resonsibilites are discharged, and college is paid for.

[handy]

The money is for the child. The child cannot win the lottery until they are older than 18.

As for the wife winning the lottery, if that were the case & she does like you, she could petition the court to ask that you don't have to pay the support anymore.

But then what would you tell your kids when they are 18? That you didn't want to support them anymore cause she won the lottery?

[Rysdad]

Points well taken. I'm simply objecting to the formula the state uses to calculate the support (My net x 25% = gimme). Her income doesn't enter into it. That's what's wrong.
The amount I pay far exceeds the cost of what could be consumed, purchased to wear, or be reasonably expected to be needed by the average 8-year-old.
And why aren't non-divorced parents required to put 25% of their net into their kids' accounts? But I digress.
Another thought occurs: Alimony is tax deductible by the payor; child support isn't. Why? It's money paid to someone else for their support.
Furthermore, she gets to claim his as the tax deduction, not me.
I've raised these questions with lawyers, judges and other officials. The most honest response I got was, "Justice isn't always fair."
But then, is it justice?

[Rysdad]

Handy, let's say she wins gazillions. Irrelevant. I still have to pay. It's the formula that's wrong. She has no responsibility nor accountability.
And, legally, when he's 18 I don't have to pay anything. Of course I'd do everything I could do to help him out irrespective of his age.

[Markxxx]

The fact that you claim to provide 100% of the support when your child is with your ex makes me tend to believe you aren't seeing the situation objectively.

If I were your wife I would give you custody of that kid for 6 months and pay you 25% of my income. I would bet you would be more than happy to go back to things the way they were.

[Nickrz]

What's a little out of line? That I see fit to comment on a topic in this forum? Give me a break.

I know what joint custody means, I'm a joint custodian of my own son. "The way I (Rysdad) figure it" and actually paying 100% of the support of the child are two different things. Do you make your ex's house payment? Car payment? Do you pay for day care and clothing and food? What about schoolbooks? Buy all your child's toys? Gas to get to soccer practice? Do you buy all the medicine?
Lord, there are a million incidental out of pocket expenses for a primary custody parent.
In effect, what you're saying is, your ex is contributing nothing towards supporting the child. I think that's probably far from the real situation.

In my humble opinion, anyone who cries about contributing 25% of their pretax earnings to supporting their own child should take an honest appraisal of what it really costs to raise a child these days and then ask themselves: "Would I begrudge my child this money if they lived with me?"

[lvick]

Nick,
commenting is fine, saying, in affect, you're a jerk for asking is not. If you read the OP carefully you will notice that the poster pays health and daycare and has 1/2 time custody and all the incidentals that entails,
Larry

[TVeblen]

I agree w/ PatrickM, the financial status of the wife should be calcuated into the support calculations. As an "old" feminist (equal rights, equal responsibilities) vs "new" feminist (woman are victims and men are shits), both father and mother should contribute as much as possible to the support of the child.

The example of an exwife marrying someone who is unwilling to help with the support of the child is all too real--but WRONG. Marrying means forming a new family, and that includes accepting responsiblity for children. If the new hubby isn't willing to help supoprt his new wife's child, he's a dolt and a loser.

BTW, I am not speaking through my hat. My blessedly absent Ex paid child support. Even though the mother was a bottom feeder, averse to work in all forms--and my Ex wasn't a whole lot better--I still supported him so he could afford his child support payments. Of all the things I begrudge now, that isn't one of them. Someone has to be an adult and look to the care of children. That isn't intended as a sideways, highfalutin' slam at anyone. Money is just a tool, and I couldn't think of a better way to spend it than help his poor daughter have a chance at a better life.

Sorry, I didn't mean to pull this off track. But I spent from age 5 on as a tennis ball batted between my divorced parents. I felt *guilty* for everything that cost money, because that was the arena the battle played out. It took me years to understand that the real issue wasn't the money; it was that our parents loved my sister and I,and working out how to "share" a child was incredibly painful.

With all that sidetracking, yes, I agree that women should pay the full amount they can afford. Almost all do, and more. May I suggest that some of the pain comes when the argument is raised that the mother puts in so much more "sweat equity": the daily worry, and nagging and childrearing? It's all true, but can also be very bitter for many fathers who would love nothing more than a chance to do the same. It's painful to be reduced to a support payment, when they love their children and yearn to put in that day-to-day involvement in their child's life.

No issue I can't complicate,
Veb

[Manda JO]

I think the reason that the courts do not take the custodial's parent's income into account when determining the ammount of child support the non custodial parent should pay is because it is impossible to determine. For example: Say you have a single woman with one child who makes 25K a year. You CAN support two peple on that salery (at least here in the south). It may mean that the child sleeps in the living room, there is no insurance on the car, and ground beef is a luxury item, but it can be done. I know people who do it because they have no other options.
Now, if the father of that child is making half a milion a year, how much should he be paying? The mother can pay for all of that child's needs, and in fact support that child in a similar fashion to many, many children in two parent families. Therefore, should we let the father off the hook? Of couse not. In such a disparate situation, we would expecty his child support payments to probably be larger than his exwife's salary. On the other hand, if the father is a short order cook making 17K a year, can we expect him to turn every penny over until he starves to death or dies of exposure? No. The problem here is that there is no static monetary number for how mach a child costs. For lack of a better way to determine things, we feel as a society that the economic level a child is reared at should be based on the economic level of _both_ parents. The child of a six-figure making manager is seen as entitled to things that the child of a bartender is not. Look at braces; an upper middle class parent who refused to pay for braces is seen as negligent; for lower class families braces are not even an option. This is not a very pretty way to look at things, but it is how our society works, and I think the courts are following suit when they set child support payments based solely on the non-custodial parent's income.

[Nickrz]

Ivick - I'm sorry you disapprove of my comments, but that's too bad. I have the same freedom to express myself as you do. Are you in the habit of telling everyone what they can say and how they must say it?

[Rysdad]

Nickrz, if you're going to moderate, please pay attention.
Why should I be required to pay anything toward my ex's house or car payments? She'd have those payments whether my son was there or not. I already stated that I paid his medical and daycare expenses. I pay for my own gas when I pick him up and drop him off--22 miles each way, 8 roundtrips per each 14 days. (The court said only I was liable for those costs). She doesn't buy him toys; she says that's my job. I buy clothing for him because she refuses to send any along with him. His school books are supplied by the school.
That leaves meals. He eats lunch at school. I buy half of his dinners. He has more breakfasts at her house because we agreed that it's better for him to spend school nights at her house rather than having to get up early here and drive through rush hour traffic.
And child support is based on POST-tax income, not pre-tax as you say.
So, do I pay her house payments, her car payments, her utilities? I think so. But I shouldn't. Where's her responsibility?
I take part in just as many "incidentals" as she does. I take him to the doctor, to karate class, to the swimming pool. I meet with his teachers. I help him with his homework.
I am equally involved.
But back to the point. Why isn't her income taken into account? She works. Her husband works. I pay 25% of my NET, but they get the tax deduction.
I want to attack the child support laws based on violation of due process and unequal treatment under the law. I'm being fined and I haven't committed a crime.
I want to SHARE in my son's life, and I do, more than many fathers (divorced or non-divorced), I'd hazard to guess.
But "share" is the operative word. I'm not sharing. I'm underwriting. And under the current child support structure, I have no recourse. The law needs to be changed.
My question: Would it be feasible to challenge the law based on what I've stated--that not taking into account the household income of the custodial parent is a violation of due process and unequal treatment?

[Nickrz]

FYI, I'm not moderating, so I don't know what that's got to do with it.

Do you have joint custody? Is your ex the primary custodian, that is, does the child live at her house? I'm assuming this is the case.

1. You should be obligated to pay something towards your ex's house and car payments because that house and car are maintained partially in support of your child. That's what child support means.

2. Who pays for medical insurance and day care expenses are worked out as part of the custody and dissolution agreement. If you think you got the unfair burden in that respect, take it up with your lawyer. He goofed, not the court. In any event, this in no way relieves you of your primary financial obligation.

3. The non-primary custodial parent assumes all costs related to transportation for visitation purposes; this is usual and customary. You want to visit? You pay the cost. After all, it is you who no longer lives with the child.

4. If your ex does not buy him toys, then that beef is with your ex, not the court or the state. Ditto with her refusing to send clothes along with him - she sounds like a real piece of work. I'd take her back to court if I were you.

5. His lunch at school is free? You buy "half his dinners." Of course you do, you should be buying half of all of his food.
Is there a problem with that?

6. I don't know how they do it in Minnesota, but here in Illinois, child support is based on a percentage of gross earnings.

7. You take part in as many incidentals as she does. I do the same, and we are heartily commended for trying to be good fathers. Neither does this relieve us of our primary financial responsibility. Do you wish to be "paid" for your time by lessening the amount of money you give to your child?

8. You are not "equally" involved in the eyes of the court. The child does not live with you. If you fail to see the difference, then you don't understand your custody arrangements.

9. Her income is not taken into account simply because it has nothing to do with your moral, ethical and societal obligation to support a child you fathered. If you were still married, and your wife made twice as much as you did, would you feel justified in withholding "your" money from the marriage (and the child) in light of the income differential? I hope the answer is "no", in which case I'll ask you: why is your case any different because you're no longer married? At what inequality level in incomes should your financial obligation to your child be attenuated? If she made 10 times the amount you do, should you be able to just walk away? Because that sounds like what you're getting at with this "challenge the law" suit.

It sounds to me you think you got a raw deal because of laws made to protect children from irresponsible adult behavior. However, I think the real raw deal is being dealt to you (and your child) by your ex-wife, and you dislike handing that money over to her. Whatever problems you have with all of the above, you still have that obligation to your child.

In my opinion, nothing can erase that.

[PatrickM]

I say this understanding the accounting nightmare and increased costs it would involve, but should the child support laws require the recipient parent to account to the family court for how the child support money is spent? Would some of the tension be reduced if the paying spouse had independent confirmation, verified through the court, that the money was in fact going for the child's benefit? If a full accounting through the court would be too much (and its my idea, and even I think it would be too much) maybe then the recipient parent should be subjected to random audits of the money.

As for the class action suit, I hate to say it, because I think changing statutes is for the legislature and not the courts, but in this day and age screwier class action suits have survived. (IE, when I first heard the states were suing the tobacco companies I thought they would get thrown out of court in nothing flat, which shows how much I know.)

[handy]

Rysdad, I don't know how your state calculates things.

In California, most of the time the man gets the better of everything child custody wise.

have you thought of getting a job at McDonalds so you only have to pay her a couple hundred a month? :-)

[Rysdad]

I'd really prefer answers to my questions, but, what the hell, Nickrz has me fired up now. In response to him:

1- Ok. The ex's house and car are partially in support of my son. But where does support end and extravagance begin? Since the divorce and her remarriage, she has purchased two brand new cars and a four-bedroom house, and her husband doesn't make that much more than me. I drive a '92 Cutlass with 110M and I can't afford to get my soffets replaced.

2- Swing and a miss there, Nick. Medical coverage and daycare are NOT part of the dissolution agreement. They are tacked on above and beyond child support. My lawyer didn't goof. You did when you made that assumption and statement.

3- You said "If you want to visit, you pay." Hmph. Now try to square that with your later statement about moral, ethical and societal responsibilities. Am I not complying with all of those responsibilities by spending every possible moment I can with my son? Certainly you'd agree that a participative father is better than the one who mails the check and says "see ya." I personally think that those people should pay more. After all, by spending the time that I do with my son, I'm lessening the "burden" (as you seem to imply it is) on my ex wife. Do I want to be recognized for it? Damn straight I do. Should transportation costs be figured into the equation? Of course.

4- In a previous post you said that my ex had all sorts of "incidentals" to pay for such as toys. I said that I bought the toys, and you said that my beef was with her and not the court. Wrong. My beef lies squarely with the court for requiring no accountability.

5- Yes, I pay for half his dinners, but (listen closely now) I pay for them TWICE. Once via support, and once when he's with me.
Get it? I've already paid for them, but I get to pay for them again.

6- Do I want to be paid for my time thereby lessing the amount of support I pay? See #3 above.

7- Regardless of your statement, I am equally involved in my son's life, even in the court's eyes. We have joint legal custody. That means I'm just as responsible as my ex, but since she has sole physical custody, I have much less authority.

8- Would I withhold my support if we were still married and she made twice as much? Of course not. But that's irrelevant. Then you asked if she made ten times as much, would I expect to have my payments attenuated. Of course. Don't be absurd. Think of it like this: Your kid works as McDonald's and you, yourself, get a huge raise and are now pulling down huge bucks somewhere. Would you help your kid out in making a large purchase, say tuition, or would you say, "Sorry, kiddo. You're poor and must suffer." Those same morals and ethics you mentioned before should require you to help out because you're in the position to do so.

I have never shirked any obligation to my son. I'm as proud to be his father as a guy can be. I'll continue to be there for him at every opportunity.

But the child support I pay is excessive, and I'm trying to find out if I can challenge the law based on the issue I raised as to whether not taking the custodial parent's household income into account equates to a violation of due process and unequal treatment under the law.

[Manda JO]

I do not think that you could ever talk about inequality in "household income" because your exwife's new husband (who contributes) is in no way, shape, or form legally responsible for your kid. If you remarry, your child support figures will not be recalculated to take into account your new wife's income because she too will not be legally responible for your son.

Secondly, I agree with Nickrz that the problem seems to be more with your exwife than with the law. The law assumes (justly or unjustly--it dosn't matter) that you are a deadbeat, and so mandated that you pay 25%, assuming that that will be the end of your contributions. Out of that 25% your exwife is supposed to buy clothes and toys, etc. If she is more or less using your son's welfare as a way to extort more money from you " I'm not going to buy him clothes w/ the money earmarked for his support. You don't have to either, you can let him freeze. . . " If that is the case, she is holding your son hostage and that sounds like a criminal offence. I would talk to a lawyer.

Finally, remember that living in a nicer neighborhood, while a luxury, is a luxury that your son is benefiting from. He's probably able to go to better schools, for example, than he would if he lived in a neighborhood like mine, which satifies all your physical needs and where you hardly ever hear gunfire.

[PatrickM]

Rysdad:

The reason why child support payments aren't deductible is because such payments are not deductible when made by a married couple with children so that it would be unequal treatment to allow divorced people with children to deduct such expenses. That is, married parents cannot deduct the cost of their child's food, clothing, entertainment and education, so divorced parents shouldn't be able to deduct such costs either.

As for your point about the amount of support, I agree that both parents income's should be taken into account when calculating the amount due. I live in Ohio, which uses a pro rata percentage of both parent's incomes to determine the amount of support.

[Rysdad]

Ok, I'll delete the words "household income." Rephrase it to say my ex's income only.

The point is, it's only my income that is used to calculate the support. THAT'S the sticking point. It's inequitable.

The amount I pay far exceeds my son's basic needs so far as to leave plenty left over for discretionary spending.

Regarding my ex's husband not being responsible...you mean to say he could let my son starve and not be held liable? He is obviously responsible to some degree. He may not be financially liable, but as long as my son spends part of his time there, he indeed does have some responsibilities.

And, as far as I can tell, he's a pretty good guy. No problems with him.

[kellibelli]

I have some thoughts on this...

Keep in mind I live in Canada, so I wont address the legal or tax stuff.

As a sole custodial single working mother of 2, I think that the support should be calculated as such:

1. Take the rent/mortgage payment and divide it appropriately. I need a 3 bedroom home, divide the rent by 3,( one third is my share,) divide the last two thirds by two, and that is my share for the kids, and his share.

2. divide utilities as above.

3. Car payments, gas, insurance, as above.

4. grocery bills, as above.

5.Daycare, sports etc as above.

6. Clothing bills for the kids split in half.

etc etc...once a total has been reached, then the parties should be responsible for the total.

If the dads half adds up to 5% or 50% of his income, I dont think it should matter.

My ex pays a small % of his pay to the support, while every damn cent I make goes to their support. Every month, I might spend a total of 40 -50 bucks just on me. In June my ex paid $1400 for a three wheeler. I drive a 20 year old car.....fair? not hardly. The rest of his pay after his support is paid only has to cover his board at his momma's.
Sickening.
I digress....

rhysdad, I do believe you are paying more than your share. if you have him 50% of the time...than your expenses should be equal to hers, thereby cancelling each other out.
There should be some precedent for this.

ps.
You are luck the new guy is ok. I wish my kids dad was more like you.
Good luck.

[handy]

Rysdad, have you ever called your local district attorney & asked them why you pay 25% based solely on your income? It could be a real old law, maybe it's time for them to change it?

My sort of stepson's father pays, get this,
$160 a month support and did not even pay that for 12 years. I once checked his business on the web and it showed that it made more than 1.2M a year, but he claims to only make $700 a year [living in LA, yeah, right].

Sur wish you were his dad, that wuld make things easier for him.

[handy]

Oh dear, I meant $700 a month, course :-)

[Manda JO]

Kellibelli, the problem w/ your system is that all those numbers are subjective. You say you have two kids and thus need a three bedroom house. Why not a two bedroom apartment? Or, alternitivly, why not a three bedroom house in the sort of neighborhood that where three bedrooms run 200K? (or, if you are in CA, 500K)

The same goes for clothes. If you divide the cost of clothes by three how do you determine that cost? The cost at Sears? at a thrift store? at Macy's?

Food? Are children entitled to expensive health food that is better for them? Are birthday cakes a luxury or a need? How many times a month should a child eat out?

The fact is, we expect wealthy people to spend more money (although probably a lower %) on their kids than we do poor ones. If Kellibelli's ex makes enough money that it is possible to help her buy a three bedroom house instead of a two bedroom apartment so that the kids can have thier own rooms and a yard, we expect him to do it as the best thing for his kids. If, on the other hand, Kellibelli's ex makes 15K a year, and all he could do was help pay for that apartment, we wouldn't consider it abusive to ask the children to share a room and not have a dog.

There simply is no flat rate for raising a child. Their are two parent families out their who make less than the child support payments of other people. Their kid's needs are met. But we are talking about more than needs. As a society we tend to feel that children are entitled to a share in the family wealth while they are growing up. We think very poorly of wealthy parents who simply satisfy the needs of their children.

[Diceman]

If your situation is anything like what Manda JO describes, then you might have a claim that you are, in fact, the primary caregiver for the child. I'd talk to a lawyer that has experience in cases where a parent is using the kids as a weapon. That might get you somwhere. If the mother is extorting money based on the child's welfare, I'd look into some kind of abuse or neglect charge against her.

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

[Diceman]

Just to clarify, I was referring to Manda JO's previous post, not the one that appeared directly before mine.

[Rysdad]

From my research, there seem to be several different ways of computing support. Some of them seem rather reasonable. One such formula is based on the noncustodial parent's income, but it includes an allowance for the other parent's income like this:

1- NC parent's income x .25 = Amount Child Should Receive (ACSR)

2- Both parents' after tax income = Calculating Base (CB)

3- NC parent's income/CB = Fair Share (FS)

4- ACSR x FS = Amount NC parent pays

So you say, what if the custodial parent isn't working? Then I'd be no worse off since I'm paying 25% already, and the law states that 25% is the -maximum- any NC parent would have to pay for 1 child.

What if the custodial parent quits his/her job? Well, if the NC parent did that, child support begins to accrue because they "intentionally limited their own income."
In that case, the NC parent would have their support raised to the ACSR calculated amount, but the custodial parent would, get this, owe the NC parent the shortfall that the NC parent had to cover during the period that the custodial parent didn't work.

They can't do that, you say. Sure they can. They do it to NC parents all the time.

And who's going to determine if the custodial parent quit their job for a good reason, or if they quit just to increase the support? Well, there's already a formula in place for that. It's the one they use to determine if someone is eligible for unemployment insurance.

Look...I am fully willing to pay half of my son's support. In fact, I'd love to pay half. But I'm paying -more- than half. I wouldn't mind it that much if my ex was out of work or if she incurred some sort of major, unplanned expense that required her to make some major expenditures that could conceivably require depriving my son financially.

But that ain't the case.

--------------------

And, believe it or not, I get along pretty well with the ex, all things considered. We spoke at length last night regarding our son, and we again found that we have the same thoughts regarding his development. We shared some laughs even. Child support is really only the single issue where we disagree, and it's obviously pretty divisive.

But it needn't, and shouldn't, be that way.

Child support laws were drawn up during an era after women and children ceased to be chattel but before women entered the workforce to a much greater degree. In my view, the laws haven't kept up.

I'd love to be able to give the child support laws some legal evolutionary help.

My argument is that calculating child support based solely on the income of the non-custodial parent is inherently and intrinsically a violation of due process since the amount the child receives is not in any at all related to the amount the child needs or requires since the amount the custodial parent contributes is not included in the formula.

This really needs to be tested in court.

[Manda JO]

Kellibelli:

How would the judge decide what was outragous? I know households where say, a $200 prom dress would be considered outragous beyond reckoning, and others where to not buy an expensive prom dress would be tantamount to abuse. Are private piano lessons a legal entitlement? There is no black and white here, only grey.

Kellibelli said:

"In essense when the 2 parents are together, all the money goes to the home/child, and when the spouse leaves, that lowers only the grocey bill of the home..."

In which case, you can always change the home. You are renting a house now. Why are your kids entitled to that and not to a one bedroom unairconditioned apartment in a bad neighborhood where they both sleep in your room and go to a school w/ no library? Because they are innately more worthy than the children living in those conditions? Of course not. They are entitled to better than that and you have the right to insist that their father pay for better than that simply because they were lucky enough to be born to parents who made more than minummum wage. In the same vein, if their father made $6/hr, you (and the courts) would not be right to insist that he turn over every penny until he dies of exposure (or loses even that job because he can't afford a place to shower).

What a parent _ought_ to provide for a child is directly linked to the income level of the parents (plural). Therefore, the only way to determine child support is to take the parents level of income into account.

One more example:

Say a billionaire gets drunk one night and fathers a child on a cocktail waitress. If that billionaire were to sit down and say, "well, the poverty level for a woman and one child is X dollars per year" and sent an annual check for that ammont, we would consider it to be gross negligence even though he is, according to the government, meeting all of the child's needs.

If a truck driver got drunk and fathered a child on a cocktail waitress, and sat down and said "well, if I sleep in my rig year round, and give up planning for retirement, I can send 50% of my income, or Y dollars, to the mom and kid" We would think he was doing the right thing and approve of his actions, even if his $Y was less than the $X of the billionaire. Why? because children are entitled to part of their _family_ wealth and a child lucky enough to be fathered by a billionaire ought to get more than a fourth story walk-up. This isn't fair to the child of a truck driver, but we live in a capitilist society with widely varing income levels, and this is the only possible solution.

[Rysdad]

Just a question...what if the truck driver fathered a child with a Rockefeller heiress?

[Manda JO]

I think that in that case the truck driver is still ethically required to contribute to his child's support. The law has to be that way-- it's a matter of princepal--parents out to support thier children. On the other hand, the Rockefeller heiress ought to turn it down--petition the courts herself to have it eleminated. But if I were the truck driver I would not want it eleminated all together. As America's forign policy illustrates, finnacial support and inflence in policy are one and the same.

[Rysdad]

Manda, I agree wholeheartedly.

Rysdad,
two salient points (from your post above)

Look...I am fully willing to pay half of my son's support. In fact, I'd love to pay half. But I'm paying -more- than half.

Should one spouse pay more than half? That depends on the salaries of each parent, and with which parent the child lives.
Assuming two parents with equal salaries, and the child lives with one parent, then the other parent should contribute more to the "common pot." The calculations get more complicated when the parents don't earn the same amount of money, one (or both) is remarried, etc...

My argument is that calculating child support based solely on the income of the non-custodial parent is inherently and intrinsically a violation of due process since the amount the child receives is not in any at all related to the amount the child needs or requires since the amount the custodial parent contributes is not included in the formula.

Again we disagree. If the non-custodial parent makes $x, then a certain percentage of that (25 or some other number, I couldn't venture a guess since I don't have any children) should be devoted to the child, regardless of the income of the other parent. As other posters have mentioned, the amount the child "needs or requires" should be the same for everybody, but in a (capitalist) society depends largely on the incomes of the parents.

In your situation, you state that the other parent isn't spending the same percentage of their income on the child. Assuming that's true, it would be unfair. I would think however that it would be hard to prove, unless every expense is itemized.




------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

P.S.
By the way, Rysdad, let me state that I disagree with the general argument you are making, i.e. "child support based solely on the income of the non-custodial parent is a violation of equal protection under the law."

I do agree that, judging from your description, you are paying more than your due for your child's care and education. Dealing with the court system to correct that would, I imagine, be difficult. However you can take consolation in the fact that you can face your child (and the world) proudly and state that you haven't run away from your obligations, as so many other have. You sound like a good parent.

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

[Rysdad]

Thanks, Jacques. 'Preciate that.

Actually, I know why the courts do it this way. Because it's easy. Otherwise they'd be clogged with divorcing parents with their accountants in tow trying to prove that their $75,000 per annums won't even cover the basic necessities. Then the guardians ad litem would chime in. And the court-appointed accountants. Then the babysitters would get deposed. Then would come the attachments filed against the kid's piggy bank.

All the while little Johnny watches mommy and daddy battle.

It isn't much better under the current circumstances, but at least it's over quick. 'Course, the same thing can be said about a guillotine.

Damn. I just want to be fair about the whole thing. There's GOT to be a better, more equitable formula.

[Sam Stone]

One complaint I have is that if the custodial spouse re-marries, the new husband/wife should have to share in the child care expenses.

My brother-in-law married a woman who already had one child out of wedlock, father unknown. He adopted the child because he thought it was the right thing to do. He had another child with her, and suddenly she decided he wasn't right for her and left. She fell in with another guy and re-married within six months. She is a social worker, her new husband is a professional of some sort, and they live very well. My brother-in-law is a teacher in a community college, and the child care payments eat him alive. He lives in a tiny apartment and drives a beat-up old truck, and the child care payments leave him pretty much penniless after he pays his rent. His Ex-wife's new husband is effectively getting a subsidy on his family, whereas if my Brother-in-law re-marries and has a new family, his wife and children will suffer because of the payments he makes, even though the other family probably makes three times what he does.

Somehow this doesn't seem right to me. I don't pretend to know what IS right, but something's a little out of whack.

[Rysdad]

Another interesting thing...

Let's say I remarried, had another kid, then got divorced, and the 2nd wife got custody.

Guess what? The 2nd child is only worth 5% of my net. The first child still gets 25%, the 2nd child 5%. A third would be 3%, and the system is maxed out. Subsequent children wouldn't cost me anything.

'Course by then I'd be shaking hands with St. Peter.

[Sam Stone]

One reason why the custodial parent's income should be factored in: It's not good for the kids to have two parents with widely disparate standards of living. It's hard enough for the NC parent to maintain emotional ties with the children, but if they have to stay in a hovel when they are with him but stay in a mansion with Mom, it's going to be even harder.

I don't buy the 'lifestyle for the kids' argument anyway. Show me how it benefits the kids to have their parents drive a Mercedes instead of a Ford Taurus. If there is any correlation between wealth and childhood happiness it's pretty weak. Once a kid is no longer in abject poverty, the quality of his upbringing and the happiness of his childhood depends on the love he gets and the attention he gets, and not on how much money he has. I've seen a lot of kids get screwed up because their parents had too much money.

In thinking about this, what I'd like to see is something like a minimum amount that must be paid which represents the NC parent's share of the regional cost for quality housing, nutritious food, decent clothing, etc., plus a monthly spending allowance for the child. That may total $300, or it may be $1000, depending on the area of the country we're talking about. Over and above that, any increases should reflect the incomes of both parents. I don't think the NC parent should be responsible for ANY more unless his or her income is is higher than the custodial parent's, for one thing.

If the custodial spouse re-marries, the new husband or wife should have to assume some responsibility. How much, I don't know. But just the fact that they moved in and can pay half the rent should absolve the NC parent from the rent portion or at least part of it.

[bantmof]

I don't have any kids of my own, but I have talked at some length with a friend of mine who has one. This guy makes a darned good (6 figure) salary, and his child support payments are more than my entire _salary_.

Which might not be so bad in and of itself, except that:

(A) The mother has not let him see his kid in over 4 years, and he wants very badly to be part of the kid's childhood. And,

(B) There is _no_ accountability at all on where all that money is going. It sure doesn't seem to be going towards things that would benefit the kid. The mother has not so much as started a college fund with any of the money, so if he wants that to happen, he has to do it on his own with money that is not part of the normal support payments. The legal system apparently places _no_ accountability at all on the parent who receives the payments.

(C) The mother has since quit her own job and has no income of her own.

It's a real raw deal, IMHO. And this guy is like the nicest guy you could ever want to meet. He doesn't complain about the monetary part, but damned if I would in his shoes. He's getting screwed on both the financial and parental fronts. He's tried repeatedly to get the mother to let him see the kid, but no results so far. I could maybe see that if he was a really bad influence or something, but I think I'm a pretty good judge of character, I've known him for over 7 years, and I think he'd make twenty times the parent the mother is. He's a good guy.

--
peas on earth

[kellibelli]

I realize the numbers would be subjective, but that is where the courts come in...if I make an outrageous claim for say clothing...the judge could look at it and say it was not acceptable...etcand as far as the fancy house/ car etc...remember, one third of those expenses would be solely mine, and then the final two thirds are divided...thus leaving me with essentially two thirds of the whole cost...why would I want to spend more than necessary for a home, car etc...( of course, if the custodial parent makes more money, then this whole theory flops as they can afford the best....but it has been my experience that the man is generally the support payer, and the higher paid employee, so my original position would apply to that type of situation.

In essense when the 2 parents are together, all the money goes to the home/child, and when the spouse leaves, that lowers only the grocey bill of the home...the rest of the bills are still there, and only half the income(or less) remains. I cant think of a better formula to measure support....a set percentage doesnt seem fair.To either party.

Rysdad says:

The point is, it's only my income that is used to calculate the support. THAT'S the sticking point. It's inequitable.

I don't understand why that is inequitable. It seems to me that it doesn't matter how much you earn, part of your income should go towards supporting your child, regardless of how much the spouse makes. If your spouse makes 100K a year, and you make 20K, does that mean you can say "I don't have to give you anything because you make more money than me?"

Or are you saying that both parents should be paying equal amounts? Then in the case above, the parent making 100K a year could say to the spouse "I spend 20K a year for the kid, so you should too." How will the other spouse manage that on a yearly salary of 20K a year?

Now if you're upset that the money is being wasted by your spouse, that's another matter and raises the issue of accountability. But I still think that a flat percentage of your salary seems a fair way to determine how much money should go towards child support.

How about an arrangement where the child lives with you 50% of the year and 50% of the year with your ex? Is that possible?

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

[Manda JO]

dhamnson:
"in thinking about this, what I'd like to see is something like a minimum amount that must be paid which represents the NC parent's share of the regional cost for quality housing, nutritious food, decent clothing, etc., plus a monthly spending allowance for the child. "

How would you possibly determine these things? Plenty of two parent households raise children with out what most middle class people consider to be "quality housing, nutritious food, decent clothing, etc.." We don't take thier children away. What the hell is quality housing?

Of course, money does not by happiness, but it can sure as hell help. I am mostly thinking here of the sort of oppertunities that money can offer to child, not the creature comforts. For instance, it is a great shame but no crime when the child of poor parents is never able to develop his incredible musical talent because no one can afford lessons. On the other hand, it is negligent for wealthy parents to deny the same talented child lessons because they want to spend the money on frivolities. In the same fashion, wealth (or even middle-classdom) can open the way to better schools, university education, exposure to different parts of the country, newspaper subscriptions, etc. More prosaically, look at dental care. It is a luxury for many people, not a necessity, and years later you can tell the people whose parent's had the money to send them to a dentist/othodontist. Andd this can make a real difference in your life--You can be the brightest, best dressed, most well spoken person in the world, but if when you open your mouth people see a bunch of twisted black teeth, you are at a seriious disadvantage at job interviews. Poor people can't help thier kids with this, but wealthy parents have an obligation too.

[EnigmaOne]

{{{Guess what? The 2nd child is only worth 5% of my net. The first child still gets 25%, the 2nd child 5%. A third would be 3%, and the system is maxed out. Subsequent children wouldn't cost me anything. }}}---Rysdad

Sounds like heaven!

Back in '92 in CA, I was ordered to pay exactly 85.925% of my net income for child support, and the District Attorney is supposed to be keeping the books on the whole deal. (Don't hand me the supposed federal laws regarding the 65% limit--when the NCP is male, they obviously don't apply.)

Even though I've been paying the support, they claim that I haven't paid a single cent. She (my ex) has been kicking back--not working--since the disso; even though the judge ordered her to work. The court refuses to enforce the order, claiming that a person can't be compelled to work.

Their interpretation of the issue is one of compulsory work, equating it to slavery...so they do nothing while I'm sentenced to a life of slavery, while my ex laughs her way to the bank.

Nick, you're entitled to your opinion....too bad it isn't more objective. I did expect more of you, but maybe you had a bad day too.

Sorry folks, but I avoided the issue for a long time, but this thread just brought it out of me on a particularly bad day.

I'm going back to work....

------------------
--Kalél
Common ¢ for all ages...
"Well, there was that thing with the Cheese-Wiz....but I'm feeling much better now!" -- John Astin, Night Court

[Sam Stone]

Standards for reasonable housing, clothing, food, etc. are easy enough to come by, especially if you're willing to fudge on the high side instead of striving for absolute accuracy. When you get a student loan they use a formula which factors all this stuff in, and the same applies when you try to get welfare. It's a trivial matter for a state agency to do a survey to find out average real-estate prices, etc.

Another possibility: You have to support the child to that minimum amount, OR to maintain the standard of living that the family had before you split up, whichever is higher. This avoids the problem of the main breadwinner leaving and putting the other parent and children into a lower standard of living, which I'm guessing is why the laws regarding income came to be in the first place.

Another possibility: After you've paid the minimum amount, the NC parent has the option of putting excess funds directly into an education fund or other trust fund that only the child can access after his 18th birthday.

The bottom line is that divorce is a terrible thing to put kids through, to be avoided at all costs. One way you avoid divorces is to make sure there are financial consequences for both parents. I wonder how many divorces ultimately happen because one person knows he or she will get custody and a big cheque every month. Especially in the case of an extra-marital affair the financial boost could be enough reason for someone to demand a divorce.

[kellibelli]

I just have to make a couple of quick points:

1.Support does not equal visitation. Even abusive nc parents have to pay support. Child support is not rent on the child for a few hours.

2) There are very few people who will benefit financially from a divorce.
That is a gross exaggeration on your part dhanson...On the contrary, many, many people stay in loveless or unsafe situations out of financial desperation. The amount of people who would actually get more money once divorced would make up such a tiny part of the population...it cant even be relevant. You would need a nc parent who makes at least 4X's what they are currently contributing to the household.

For example, mr trumpy makes one million a year, but gives his wife a mere $100,000 per year to run the home...the rest he keeps. Upon divorce, he must pay her $250,000 per year. OK, her income goes up, but there arent alot of men who make a million per year, and the wives dont reap the full benefit, cars, boats, homes vacations etc.

E1skeptic...why dont we put her and shitboy in a boat and get scotty to shoot it out of the water? Isnt there anything you can do? 85% is awfully harsh.
In this province, it is closer to 15%.
Wanna relocate? ;)

[Rysdad]

Kelli is quite right that support and visitation are unrelated. Whether the NC parent is up-to-date on the payments or not, they still have the right to see the kids. Of course, if they're way behind, they might also find a cop waiting when they show up for visitation.

God, I loathe that word--visitation. It seems so demeaning.

[handy]

Manda JO, a wife is entitled to the amount of support that would allow her to keep the same living style.

Support= alimony & child.

[Manda JO]

dhanson:
"Standards for reasonable housing, clothing, food, etc. are easy enough to come by, especially if you're willing to fudge on the high side instead of striving for absolute accuracy. When you get a student loan they use a formula which factors all this stuff in, and the same applies when you try to get welfare. It's a trivial matter for a state agency to do a survey to find out average real-estate prices, etc."

They have done that. It is called the povery line. Do you really think that a man who makes six figures should only maintain his children at that level?

dhanson:
"Another possibility: You have to support the child to that minimum amount, OR to maintain the standard of living that the family had before you split up, whichever is higher. This avoids the problem of the main breadwinner leaving and putting the other parent and children into a lower standard of living, which I'm guessing is why the laws
regarding income came to be in the first place."

This would basically condemn many people to dead beat dad status--I mean, if the household cannot reach the poverty line with two working adults, how will it reach the povery line when there are two households?

The fact is, in virtually all divorces, the standard of living for both families is going to go down. Two households now have to be supported on the income (both parents together) which prevously had supported one. Unless there was previously a large surplus of cash that wasn't being used. . . The question is , is the household with the children going to decline into abject poverty and want while the house without the children stays middle class?

I still hold that in our society money buys oppertunity, and that both parents have an obligation to their children to provide as many oppertunities as they can, not simply to keep those children from dying of malnutrion or exposure. (the result of a minumun standard)

About step-parents:
Several people have posted that the income of step-parents ought to be figured in. It seems to me that if you were going to do that, you would have to take into account the income of the non-custodial parent's spouse as well--I mean, If the new person is paying 1/2 the bills now, so the non custodial parent should have more money available for the children, right? THis leads to a real funny effect:

Suzie marries Johnny. Upon doing so, her child support payments take a hit because she is now married. At the same time, Johnny's child support payments go through the roof because he is now married to a woman w/ a job. That is a lot of income loss, and I suspect that it would stop a lot of marriages and lead to a lot of live in type relationships.

[Rysdad]

In fact, if the NC parent remarries, the new spouse's income IS taken into account. And, if the NC parent takes a second or part-time job, that gets taken into account, too. At least in MN.

I have personal knowledge of this. I took in a renter and the courts added the rental income into my gross earnings before calculating support.