What is the logic for high spousal support and child support payments

[Wesley Clark]

Cesar Millan was in the news regarding his divorce, he has to pay $23,000 a month in spousal support and $10,000 a month in child support for two kids. I have no idea why the spousal support payment is higher than the child support payment, or what that is about (you'd assume child support would be higher). But either way, if someone 'needs' 400k a year to make ends meet for one parent and two kids they are doing it wrong.

But when a celebrity or a wealthy person ends up paying such high amounts in spousal and child support, what is the logic that the judge uses? Unless you are living in a very high end house in one of the most expensive parts of the country, why does someone need or deserve 30k a month in 'support'? The word support implies support, not opulence.

Why aren't alimony and child support designed to keep people out of poverty instead of give them upper class luxuries (in situations where the main wage earner can afford upper class luxuries)?

Would a cap of $5,000 or so a month with extra allowances as needed ( if the spouse or child has medical conditions, high rent area, college tuition) be a better idea?

[Odesio]

Alimony and child support payments are based on income. The logic is that children become accustomed to living a certain lifestyle and parents must continue to maintain that lifestyle following a divorce. The same is true of a spouse. They're entitled to continue living a lifestyle commiserate with the one they had while married.

[Manda JO]

Why a ceiling of $5000? If you argue that no child deserves more than basic support, then there should be some sort of flat rate (adjusted for regional cost-of-living) that every non-custodial parent pays regardless of their income. If you accept that a well-off non-custodial parent has a responsibility to chip in towards a better-than-poverty lifestyle in a way that a poor non-custodial parent doesn't, then the rest is just quibbling over details. Which is your position?

[Edward The Head]

Originally Posted by Odesio

Alimony and child support payments are based on income. The logic is that children become accustomed to living a certain lifestyle and parents must continue to maintain that lifestyle following a divorce. The same is true of a spouse. They're entitled to continue living a lifestyle commiserate with the one they had while married.

But why? Life isn't the same after a divorce so why should the children expect it to be the same? By that same logic then when the primary custody parent gets remarried to someone who makes the same or more then child support should go away or be reduced yet it's not.

[Myrnalene]

Originally Posted by Edward The Head

But why? Life isn't the same after a divorce so why should the children expect it to be the same? By that same logic then when the primary custody parent gets remarried to someone who makes the same or more then child support should go away or be reduced yet it's not.

Why should the custodial parent's new spouse be required to support the biological children of the first spouse?

[Edward The Head]

Originally Posted by Myrnalene

Why should the custodial parent's new spouse be required to support the biological children of the first spouse?

Because they already are. So what happens then if they get divorced, by the same logic the children should get more money because they have become accustomed to having all of those extra things. What happens when the children can no longer take all the expensive sports that they have because they get the money from the biological parent and the new step parent?

I can give one example, around here, near DC, swimming is very popular, and very expensive. It costs 3-4k every 3-4 months to swim on a team. If a child is swimming because they get money from both the biological parent and the step parent and can swim, what happens if that marriage fails and the child can no longer swim but wants to because of costs. Is it now tough luck for the kid?

Things change when there's a divorce, everyone has to learn to cope and neither parent will be the same financially so why should the children be the same off if no one else is? This is not to say that the children shouldn't have things but why should it be expected they live exactly the same?

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Edward The Head

But why? Life isn't the same after a divorce so why should the children expect it to be the same? By that same logic then when the primary custody parent gets remarried to someone who makes the same or more then child support should go away or be reduced yet it's not.

If you have children you should expect to have to support them until they're 18. The fairest way I can think of to assign a number to child support is based on the income of the parents. Someone who worth $80,000,000 is going to pay more in support than someone who makes $52,000 a year. Do you have an alternative?

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Odesio

They're entitled to continue living a lifestyle commiserate with the one they had while married.

I can't believe I said commiserate. I meant comparable. I don't know what I was thinking.

[mister nyx]

Help me out here. What is the reason for a cap? I mean, obviously, there has to be some awareness of the non-custodial parent's income in the calculation -- you can't just assess a flat rate that's the same if it's a parent struggling to get by versus a parent who's doing okay. I mean, it seems natural that the amount the parent pays would be based on their income.

So what is the logic behind capping it? Since it seems logical that a (non-custodial) parent earning $15,000 a year wouldn't pay the same as a parent earning $35,000 a year, why wouldn't a parent earning $80,000 a year pay even more?

There's no obvious reason at all I can think of for there being a cap.

[BigT]

Because, despite all the talk about it being for the child or spouse's benefit, it's actually a punitive measure against the person who left. Someone who makes more money has to be hit with a larger fine to punish them more.

There is no way that the parents' income would have any value in determining how much money the child needs to be taken care of if that were the only concern. It would be a fixed amount for any child if that were the case. And it would be taken from everyone and not just the person who left.

Child support is about punishing the person who is seen to have abandoned the child. If it were welfare, it would be set up as such.

[BigT]

And I don't say the above with animosity, either. While I personally believe the child's welfare should be more important, I accept that society disagrees with me. I just hate that they lie about it.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by BigT

Because, despite all the talk about it being for the child or spouse's benefit, it's actually a punitive measure against the person who left. Someone who makes more money has to be hit with a larger fine to punish them more.

There is no way that the parents' income would have any value in determining how much money the child needs to be taken care of if that were the only concern. It would be a fixed amount for any child if that were the case. And it would be taken from everyone and not just the person who left.

Child support is about punishing the person who is seen to have abandoned the child. If it were welfare, it would be set up as such.

None of what you say actually makes any sense.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Help me out here. What is the reason for a cap? I mean, obviously, there has to be some awareness of the non-custodial parent's income in the calculation -- you can't just assess a flat rate that's the same if it's a parent struggling to get by versus a parent who's doing okay. I mean, it seems natural that the amount the parent pays would be based on their income.

So what is the logic behind capping it? Since it seems logical that a (non-custodial) parent earning $15,000 a year wouldn't pay the same as a parent earning $35,000 a year, why wouldn't a parent earning $80,000 a year pay even more?

There's no obvious reason at all I can think of for there being a cap.

The concept of 'support' implies that the goal is to help the rest of the family 'make ends meet' so the family will have enough money to survive and function. However the current goal seems to be more ensuring the same level of lifestyle is achieved as was obtained before the divorce. I don't agree with the current definition of support then.

Pensions and social security are designed to help people make ends meet in retirement, and to my knowledge they never reach the levels that comes in alimony or child support. You can lead a decent lifestyle with pensions and SS, but not 50k a month. To my knowledge social security is not designed to give you the same lifestyle you had before retirement, it is designed to support you so that you can still maintain a relatively middle class life.

These numbers aren't about parents who make 80k a year. It is about parents who make 3 million a year and pay 60k a year in alimony and child support.

[Edward The Head]

Originally Posted by BigT

Because, despite all the talk about it being for the child or spouse's benefit, it's actually a punitive measure against the person who left. Someone who makes more money has to be hit with a larger fine to punish them more.

This is utter crap. My ex is the one who left me. She makes 20-30k more then me. Child support is not a punitive measure against the person who left.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Originally Posted by Odesio

I can't believe I said commiserate. I meant comparable. I don't know what I was thinking.

Commensurate.

With the big deal that seemingly everyone makes of marriage, it always surprises me that so many people have such a disdain for the theory behind alimony and child support, or that they get off on these jags about punishment. These people got married and had kids, didn't they? There was like a whole thing about two becoming one, with all my worldly goods I thee endow, and all that? Then there's a divorce and it comes time for an equitable division of property and suddenly it's "why does this person deserve". I don't know, but you signed up for it. It's not like it's terribly difficult to avoid having one's personal property joined with another's if you're really worried about it.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

The concept of 'support' implies that the goal is to help the rest of the family 'make ends meet' so the family will have enough money to survive and function.

No, no it doesn't.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

No, no it doesn't.

If the marriage breaks off, why are the spouse and children entitled to opulence?

[Myrnalene]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

The concept of 'support' implies that the goal is to help the rest of the family 'make ends meet' so the family will have enough money to survive and function. However the current goal seems to be more ensuring the same level of lifestyle is achieved as was obtained before the divorce. I don't agree with the current definition of support then.

Why should a wealthy parent be able to jettison their spouse and kids and thereby reduce their expenses to less than what they were before the divorce? Why should the children of this divorce, who have no control over the situation, have to suffer through not only the loss of their family but of their previous life as well?

Wealthy people do not need your protection or your advocacy. I'm sure Mr Milan will be fine.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

But when a celebrity or a wealthy person ends up paying such high amounts in spousal and child support, what is the logic that the judge uses? Unless you are living in a very high end house in one of the most expensive parts of the country, why does someone need or deserve 30k a month in 'support'? The word support implies support, not opulence.

You ask why Illusion Millan needs $23,000 a month. Why not ask why Cesar Millan needs $23,000 a month?

Nobody "needs" that high an income. But the fact is this particular couple has that much income. And while Cesar may be the one with the TV show, for legal purposes the couple is generally considered as a single entity for the period when they are married. The court is going to divide their assets 50/50 like they were a business partnership breaking up.

The judge isn't giving Cesar's money to Illusion. The judge is giving half of the couple's money to Cesar and the other half of the couple's money to Illusion.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

If the marriage breaks off, why are the spouse and children entitled to opulence?

You didn't answer the actual question. I assume you can't. But just in case: it's obvious that child support has to be linked to income, or you'll see obviously ridiculous results, like a man who is unemployed being expected to pay the same as a man who earns $40,000 a year.

Why is it that you think there should be a cap? I don't think there is any valid reason. You certainly haven't come up with one. Help me out here.

[The Second Stone]

I do not do divorce cases, but know plenty who do and have filled out the forms for some people from time to time. In California, this is determined by a formula. The formula is then put into a program called "Disso-Master" and it spits out results.People with high income history will have to pay a lot more. Minimum wage workers have to pay too, and it will be absolutely crushing in the amount.

[Wesley Clark]

If a parent earns 2 million a year but chooses to live like they only make 50k a year, to my knowledge no judge can step in and force them to buy more expensive things. Warren Buffet lives in the same house he lived in when he earned far less money. No judge can come in and say 'you are required to buy your kids luxury automobiles and around the world cruises' just because you have the means to do so.

As long as a parent is providing enough support so that a family has medical care, adequate food and adequate shelter the state cannot step in (I do not think). If you make 2 million a year but live in a house that cost $90,000 and you clip coupons, the state can't force you to buy a porsche for your wife and kids just because you can afford it.

So why is divorce any different? The fact that you 'can' afford something doesn't mean you 'should'. If I am married and make 5 million a year, and choose not to buy a ferrari for my child for their 16th birthday or take my family on weekend getaways to Paris, I cannot get in trouble for that. CPS will not be called on me. But if I get divorced I am going to end up paying 100k or more a month in child support and alimony.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

You didn't answer the actual question. I assume you can't. But just in case: it's obvious that child support has to be linked to income, or you'll see obviously ridiculous results, like a man who is unemployed being expected to pay the same as a man who earns $40,000 a year.

Why is it that you think there should be a cap? I don't think there is any valid reason. You certainly haven't come up with one. Help me out here.

The reason I didn't answer your question is because your question is based on misreading my OP.

I didn't say there shouldn't be a sliding scale. An unemployed person should not have to pay the same as a person who makes 40k a year. I said the sliding scale should be capped, maybe $5000 a month per person (so with a wife and 2 kids, capped at $15,000 a month).

But with things like social security or unemployment insurance there is a sliding scale, but also a cap on your benefit. You can make up to $X a week or $X a month, but that is it. I think there should be a similar law in alimony and child support (unless extenuating circumstances exist, ie a child or spouse has an expensive chronic condition, or the kids are in college, etc).

If the state can't force you to provide opulent luxury for your wife and kids when you are married, why do they get to do that when you are divorced?

[Manda JO]

You didn't answer my question. Do you think there should be any difference at all in support levels based on income, or should there be a flat rate?

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

You didn't answer my question. Do you think there should be any difference at all in support levels based on income, or should there be a flat rate?

It should be like unemployment insurance or social security, it should be based on a sliding scale with a cap on benefits.

A person who makes 10k a year shouldn't pay what someone who makes 80k a year pays. But there should be a cap on what you do have to pay otherwise the state is mandating opulence just because a person can afford opulence.

A cap of $5000 a month in benefits per person sounded reasonable to me.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

It should be like unemployment insurance or social security, it should be based on a sliding scale with a cap on benefits.

A person who makes 10k a year shouldn't pay what someone who makes 80k a year pays. But there should be a cap on what you do have to pay otherwise the state is mandating opulence just because a person can afford opulence.

A cap of $5000 a month in benefits per person sounded reasonable to me.

Ok. Why should there be some sort of sliding scale? Why not a flat rate?

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

Ok. Why should there be some sort of sliding scale? Why not a flat rate?

Because a flat rate wouldn't work. A person can't sustain themselves and someone else w/o a sliding scale. A person who is unemployed cannot afford what someone who makes 40k a year can afford. The 40k person can't afford what the person who makes 200k a year can afford.

But If you make many millions a year you cannot be required to live the lifestyle of a millionaire. The fact that you can afford luxury autos, giant houses, weekend trips, 7 star hotels, etc doesn't mean you are forced to provide them to your spouse or children.

As long as your family has adequate health care, food, shelter, etc. that is all you must provide.

[Alessan]

Rich people spend more on their children than other people. Whether or not they are married to the children's other parent is utterly irrelevant - as the saying goes, you divorce the parent, not the kid. If you put a cap on divorced parents, you might as well put a cap on married parents.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Right; nobody will interfere with how you deal with your family, for the most part. Is that because marriage and family is something really profound and important, so much so that we build all kinds of special legal protections and rights around those bonds?

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Rich people spend more on their children than other people. Whether or not they are married to the children's other parent is utterly irrelevant - as the saying goes, you divorce the parent, not the kid. If you put a cap on divorced parents, you might as well put a cap on married parents.

If you are wealthy and married you aren't mandated by the law to provide an opulent, luxurious lifestyle to your spouse and kids. When you get divorced you are if you are wealthy.

If you are married and make 5 million a year you can't get in trouble for not spending 20k a month on each kid. As long as your kids have health care, a place to live, good food, an education, etc. that is all the state can mandate you provide.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

If the state can't force you to provide opulent luxury for your wife and kids when you are married, why do they get to do that when you are divorced?

Are you aware of any cases where the children of divorced parents live a more opulent lifestyle than when their parents were married? The idea is that the children should live a lifestyle commensurate (thank you Jimmy Chitwood) with the one they had while their parents were married. I don't see why you have a problem with this idea.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Odesio

Are you aware of any cases where the children of divorced parents live a more opulent lifestyle than when their parents were married? The idea is that the children should live a lifestyle commensurate (thank you Jimmy Chitwood) with the one they had while their parents were married. I don't see why you have a problem with this idea.

I guess my problem is that one is voluntary and the other is mandated with threats of legal consequences. Choosing to spend 20k a month on your child when you are married is not the same as being forced to do so when you are divorced.

If you make a million a year, your unemployment insurance will likely be capped at around $400 a week, same as it would be if you made 90k a year.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

These numbers aren't about parents who make 80k a year. It is about parents who make 3 million a year and pay 60k a year in alimony and child support.

Yeah, those parents need all the help they can get.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

Because a flat rate wouldn't work. A person can't sustain themselves and someone else w/o a sliding scale. A person who is unemployed cannot afford what someone who makes 40k a year can afford. The 40k person can't afford what the person who makes 200k a year can afford.

But If you make many millions a year you cannot be required to live the lifestyle of a millionaire. The fact that you can afford luxury autos, giant houses, weekend trips, 7 star hotels, etc doesn't mean you are forced to provide them to your spouse or children.

As long as your family has adequate health care, food, shelter, etc. that is all you must provide.

Why is the millionaire a different case than the guy making $80k? Why should the guy making $80K pay more than the guy making $40K? If the guy making $80K a year was still married, no one could stop him from saving 50% of his income and having the family live like the $40K guy.

[tumbleddown]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

If you are wealthy and married you aren't mandated by the law to provide an opulent, luxurious lifestyle to your spouse and kids. When you get divorced you are if you are wealthy.

If you are married and make 5 million a year you can't get in trouble for not spending 20k a month on each kid. As long as your kids have health care, a place to live, good food, an education, etc. that is all the state can mandate you provide.

You recognize that when you hear about these exceptional support awards that these are not families that have high incomes but live like Warren Buffet in modest 2 bedroom houses, right?

When support awards are so high, and yes, beyond the state mandated formula, it's because the expenses and spending of the family are analyzed and their lifestyle is taken into consideration.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

I guess my problem is that one is voluntary and the other is mandated with threats of legal consequences. Choosing to spend 20k a month on your child when you are married is not the same as being forced to do so when you are divorced.

I agree it's not the same. I just don't see any reason to be concerned about it. Everyone knows, regardless of income, that they will have to support any children they have. They're aware that the amount of support they're required to provide will be based on how much they make. I see no reason to put a cap on it and you've not provided any compelling reason for me to think about changing the way we determine the amount of support either a spouse or a child receives.

[even sven]

The theory is that if your relationship with your baby-mamma or baby-daddy doesn't work out, that should have a minimal impact on the kid's life.

Why? Why not? What is the disadvantage? That it makes it more difficult for people walk away completely from their child?

If you bring a child on to this planet, you owe that child something. One of those things is not turning their life upside down because your love life has changed. Ideally, that would mean that you still kiss their booboos, take pictures of them before they go to prom, take care of them when they are sick, drive them to school and be an active part of their life.

But that is unfortunately unenforceable. Nobody can force someone to parent their child. But they can make sure that the kid's college fund doesn't suddenly dry up because mom decided she'd rather spend that travelling to Thailand to "find herself" by banging yoga instructors, or that little Annie with childhood leukemia doesn't suddenly lose her health insurance because Dad got knocked up one of the nurses and would rather spend money on his new family than his old one.

It's not a perfect system, but its better than the alternatives.

(and if anyone wants to say that custody laws aren't fair, I'll be right along with you. But somehow these threads always start with "I don't want to pay for my kid" and not "I want custody of my kid".)

[Shakes]

I'm starting to think Prop8 was an act of compassion rather than bigotry. Jeez.

[sugaree]

Another good reason for child support based on income is so the child will be living in comparable circumstances in both homes, and so that custody/visitation decisions will not be based on the unequal living arrangements. It would not be right for the child to be spending part of his time living in a crappy little apartment in a dodgy neighborhood and part of his time living in a fully equipped mansion with a nice view of the Hollywood Hills. Nor would it be right for a parent with a much higher income to tell an older child that, well no, Parent A might not be able to afford braces/hockey equipment/cheerleading camp/whatever, but me? Parent B? Just tell the judge you want to live with me full time and you got it!

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

Unless you are living in a very high end house in one of the most expensive parts of the country, why does someone need or deserve 30k a month in 'support'? The word support implies support, not opulence. ?

It's a pretty good bet that the Milans were living in a very high end house in one of the most expensive parts of the country.

[robertliguori]

Originally Posted by even sven

The theory is that if your relationship with your baby-mamma or baby-daddy doesn't work out, that should have a minimal impact on the kid's life.

Why? Why not? What is the disadvantage? That it makes it more difficult for people walk away completely from their child?

If you bring a child on to this planet, you owe that child something. One of those things is not turning their life upside down because your love life has changed. Ideally, that would mean that you still kiss their booboos, take pictures of them before they go to prom, take care of them when they are sick, drive them to school and be an active part of their life.

But that is unfortunately unenforceable. Nobody can force someone to parent their child. But they can make sure that the kid's college fund doesn't suddenly dry up because mom decided she'd rather spend that travelling to Thailand to "find herself" by banging yoga instructors, or that little Annie with childhood leukemia doesn't suddenly lose her health insurance because Dad got knocked up one of the nurses and would rather spend money on his new family than his old one.

It's not a perfect system, but its better than the alternatives.

(and if anyone wants to say that custody laws aren't fair, I'll be right along with you. But somehow these threads always start with "I don't want to pay for my kid" and not "I want custody of my kid".)

Yes, but as long as parents remain married, then there's nothing legally stopping them from yanking that college fund or deciding to cancel that expensive insurance policy. If we are comfortable decrying that a certain percentage of parental income should be directly spent on a child's welfare, why not garnish that percentage from the income of everyone claiming a minor dependent on their taxes, and put it into a special account only eligable to spent on child care expenses? Sure, it's a bit of bueracratic overhead, and it would utterly devastate the finances of any low-income families with multiple children, but if we're declaring child support payments to be a good thing instead of a poorly-fitting patch on a hoped-to-be-rare scenario, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with applying it to everyone, right?

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by sugaree

Another good reason for child support based on income is so the child will be living in comparable circumstances in both homes, and so that custody/visitation decisions will not be based on the unequal living arrangements. It would not be right for the child to be spending part of his time living in a crappy little apartment in a dodgy neighborhood and part of his time living in a fully equipped mansion with a nice view of the Hollywood Hills. Nor would it be right for a parent with a much higher income to tell an older child that, well no, Parent A might not be able to afford braces/hockey equipment/cheerleading camp/whatever, but me? Parent B? Just tell the judge you want to live with me full time and you got it!
.

That is a good point. Too much income inequality between the two parents could lead to that being used as leverage to coerce the kids into picking one parent over the other.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

I guess my problem is that one is voluntary and the other is mandated with threats of legal consequences. Choosing to spend 20k a month on your child when you are married is not the same as being forced to do so when you are divorced.

I agree with everything you have said in this thread. The family courts are a joke whose sole purpose is to punish men.

Now, if you aren't mad enough already, think of this. The judge orders this outrageous support amount of say $25k per month to be paid to the custodial parent (usually the mother) for the support of the child. You've already talked about how this is ridiculous because you never before had a legal obligation to provide your child with that type of lifestyle, but in divorced its mandated.

Fair enough, you suck it up because you want to give your child that lifestyle. Here comes the dirty, open secret. Your ex is under no obligation whatsoever to use that $25k on your child. So long as the child has enough that CPS doesn't investigate, she can spend that $25k on whatever she wants. No accounting is required and she can openly admit that she didn't spend the money on the child. So, if it's "all for the children" why is this allowed to happen?

Family courts are notorious for doing things and ordering remedies that other courts stopped doing hundreds of years ago. Jailing people for unpaid debts (like child support) went out for other debts centuries ago. They have forced parents to actually quit a lower paying job that they enjoy to take a higher paying job to support a child, something no so far removed from slavery and an unthinkable remedy in other contexts. They are intrusive, overbearing, and arrogant under the guise of "protecting children." Hopefully, one day the Supreme Court will grow a set and stop these abuses.

I have no problem caring for my child, but as has been pointed out, I shouldn't be required by law to do more than I was required when married, and I damned sure ought to be able to see that the money goes to the child and not the ex and her new boyfriend.

[doreen]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

If a parent earns 2 million a year but chooses to live like they only make 50k a year, to my knowledge no judge can step in and force them to buy more expensive things. Warren Buffet lives in the same house he lived in when he earned far less money. No judge can come in and say 'you are required to buy your kids luxury automobiles and around the world cruises' just because you have the means to do so.

As long as a parent is providing enough support so that a family has medical care, adequate food and adequate shelter the state cannot step in (I do not think). If you make 2 million a year but live in a house that cost $90,000 and you clip coupons, the state can't force you to buy a porsche for your wife and kids just because you can afford it.

So why is divorce any different? The fact that you 'can' afford something doesn't mean you 'should'. If I am married and make 5 million a year, and choose not to buy a ferrari for my child for their 16th birthday or take my family on weekend getaways to Paris, I cannot get in trouble for that. CPS will not be called on me. But if I get divorced I am going to end up paying 100k or more a month in child support and alimony.

And if the millionaire in fact lived in a $90,0000 house, clipped coupons , didn't buy the 16th birthday Ferrari , told the the kids they were on their own for college throughout the marriage and is willing to live that way after the divorce, I'd say fine. But that never seems to be what happens. Instead the kid who turns 16 before the divorce gets the Ferrari, and the millionaire doesn't want to pay for a Ferrari for the younger kid who turns 16 after the divorce. Millionaire lived a millionaire livestyle before and after divorce, but somehow the spouse and kids should live a middle-class one.

You talk about no one being able to force the still married millionaire to buy a Porsche for his wife- but while they are still married, the wife presumably has something to say about how the money is spent and has agreed not to spend money on a Porsche, not to send the kids to expensive camps, etc. I certainly don't think kids should live better after a divorce simply because one parent can afford it- but neither should they live worse because one parent doesn't want to pay for it.

[Nicest of the Damned]

As I understand it part of the reasoning is that the success of one spouse can be credited to some extent with the stay at home spouse who helped support them while they were building their business. It can be hard to put a clear financial value on that.

It's sort of like the "Ann Romney never worked a day in her life" situation. She was dependent on Mitt for all her money. That works great unless he decides one day not to pay her anymore and she has no marketable job skills. Well, maybe they aren't the best example but you get the idea.

As has been mentioned in some of those discussions, all her financial value is is whatever she is worth to her husband. If that suddenly changes because her husband finds a younger woman she has lost all her investment (I know the roles are reversed sometimes, just trying to illustrate the point).

There are probably some who people take unfair advantage of the system and others who get screwed. I don't know what a perfect solution would be.

Did you ever see War of the Roses?

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by doreen

And if the millionaire in fact lived in a $90,0000 house, clipped coupons , didn't buy the 16th birthday Ferrari , told the the kids they were on their own for college throughout the marriage and is willing to live that way after the divorce, I'd say fine. But that never seems to be what happens. Instead the kid who turns 16 before the divorce gets the Porsche, and the millionaire doesn't want to pay for a Porsche for the younger kid who turns 16 after the divorce.

You talk about no one being able to force the still married millionaire to buy a Porsche for his wife- but while they are still married, the wife presumably has something to say about how the money is spent and has agreed not to spend money on a Porsche, not to send the kids to expensive camps, etc. I certainly don't think kids should live better after a divorce simply because one parent can afford it- but neither should they live worse because one parent doesn't want to pay for it.

Why does it have to be that way in "fact"? People are always allowed to change their lifestyles (so long as they stay married and the courts don't get involved). Even if our millionaire friend actually provided luxurious vacations and sports cars to his kids, he is under no legal obligation to continue to do so. Maybe the kid starts acting up in school and both parents decide that he loses his car privileges?

But in a divorce, it is just a straight cash calculation. If the parents want the kid to live a frugal lifestyle, that's okay, but the custodial parent still gets the court allocated amount, and the parent is free to do responsible or irresponsible things with that money. It violates every principle of equity.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by BigT

And I don't say the above with animosity, either. While I personally believe the child's welfare should be more important, I accept that society disagrees with me. I just hate that they lie about it.

I agree with you, actually. When my first babydaddy and I split up, no one asked if I needed child support (which, actually I did, but no one asked, it was simply assumed) and no one except me considered whether the cost of accepting that support was too high to make it worth it. And it was - when he paid his support, he treated our son like crap. When he didn't pay his support, he disappeared and didn't treat our son like crap. So I decided it was worth it not to take his support. Yet according to the state, he's tens of thousands of dollars in arrears, even though I don't want the money.

The language people use is very telling: "He shouldn't get away with that!" is the most common. "You should nail his ass to the courtroom door!" "Take him back to court and the judge will hand you his deadbeat head on a platter!" It's very obviously punitive.

Originally Posted by Edward The Head

This is utter crap. My ex is the one who left me. She makes 20-30k more then me. Child support is not a punitive measure against the person who left.

Child support is a punitive measure against the person who is not taking care of the children 51% of the year. Not the spouse who initiated the divorce. If it wasn't, and I was Queen of the World, you wouldn't be paying nearly what you're paying, if anything at all.

My ex-husband and I pay no child support to one another, by mutual agreement and court stamp of approval. But that's because she spends 50% of her time with me and 50% with him. The judge didn't even blink when we said we didn't want to bring child support into it unless the time spent in each house got decidedly uneven. We each buy her clothing and food and toys and books and school supplies that stay at our homes, and we split school fees, activities and medical costs 50/50. Both of us end up spending fewer dollars than the formulas would have one of us paying under court ordered support. Those formulas don't have anything to do with the cost of caring for a child, they're based on income. So if you shop at discount grocery stores and thrift stores for clothes and say no to $60 hair cuts, it's much cheaper to pay the actual expenses than the child support.

So there's an alternative to child support: support your child. Of course, that requires a working, if not amiable, relationship with your ex.

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

As long as a parent is providing enough support so that a family has medical care, adequate food and adequate shelter the state cannot step in (I do not think). If you make 2 million a year but live in a house that cost $90,000 and you clip coupons, the state can't force you to buy a porsche for your wife and kids just because you can afford it.

So why is divorce any different? The fact that you 'can' afford something doesn't mean you 'should'. If I am married and make 5 million a year, and choose not to buy a ferrari for my child for their 16th birthday or take my family on weekend getaways to Paris, I cannot get in trouble for that. CPS will not be called on me. But if I get divorced I am going to end up paying 100k or more a month in child support and alimony.

They still can't force you to spend it on "opulence" if you're divorced. They can force the non-custodial parent to pay it to the custodial parent, but that's the end of the forcing. Your ex can write you a check in an equal amount each month, or put it into a trust fund for the kids for the future, or give it away to gypsies.

Not to add another argument to the thread, but this is the part I have the most trouble with, myself. There's no requirement than child support actually be spent to support the child, and no system for tracking expenditures to ensure that it is. I think that's wrong.

And, on preview, I see jtgain just brought up that point. So, er, yes, I agree. It's ridiculous.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Nicest of the Damned

As I understand it part of the reasoning is that the success of one spouse can be credited to some extent with the stay at home spouse who helped support them while they were building their business. It can be hard to put a clear financial value on that.

It's sort of like the "Ann Romney never worked a day in her life" situation. She was dependent on Mitt for all her money. That works great unless he decides one day not to pay her anymore and she has no marketable job skills. Well, maybe they aren't the best example but you get the idea.

As has been mentioned in some of those discussions, all her financial value is is whatever she is worth to her husband. If that suddenly changes because her husband finds a younger woman she has lost all her investment (I know the roles are reversed sometimes, just trying to illustrate the point).

There are probably some who people take unfair advantage of the system and others who get screwed. I don't know what a perfect solution would be.

Did you ever see War of the Roses?

That's the traditional argument for alimony, and I don't disagree with it in limited circumstances. If they divorced, Ann Romney would get a split of the marital assets, and Mitt would have to pay alimony to accommodate her current lifestyle.

I would argue that it should only be done for a limited time, and now that the marriage is over, Ann needs to take some night classes and start looking for a job. This isn't 1910 anymore where women can't have careers.

And this is a separate issue than child support, in that alimony is out in the open support for the ex-spouse. Child support purports to be for the children when in fact, it is back door alimony.

[doreen]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

If you are wealthy and married you aren't mandated by the law to provide an opulent, luxurious lifestyle to your spouse and kids. When you get divorced you are if you are wealthy.

If you are married and make 5 million a year you can't get in trouble for not spending 20k a month on each kid. As long as your kids have health care, a place to live, good food, an education, etc. that is all the state can mandate you provide.

Define "opulence". Seriously. I know you're talking about wealthy people, but it goes all the way down the scale. I know middle class men who happily paid for camps and other extracurricular activities pre-divorce, but resent having to contribute post-divorce. In a conversation I was once involved in regarding child support, it was mentioned that the custodial parent's housing costs would be higher due to the children. One man was of the opinion that his ex-wife didn't need a three bedroom apartment like they had during the marriage- his son and daughter could share a room and the ex-wife could sleep on the couch. No doubt there is a man someone who believes that although he has a six figure income, his child support should only be enough for his ids to eat rice and beans and get their clothes from Goodwill- although neither he nor they lived that lifestyle during the marriage.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

My ex-husband and I pay no child support to one another, by mutual agreement and court stamp of approval. But that's because she spends 50% of her time with me and 50% with him. The judge didn't even blink when we said we didn't want to bring child support into it unless the time spent in each house got decidedly uneven. We each buy her clothing and food and toys and books and school supplies that stay at our homes, and we split school fees, activities and medical costs 50/50. Both of us end up spending fewer dollars than the formulas would have one of us paying under court ordered support. Those formulas don't have anything to do with the cost of caring for a child, they're based on income. So if you shop at discount grocery stores and thrift stores for clothes and say no to $60 hair cuts, it's much cheaper to pay the actual expenses than the child support.

So there's an alternative to child support: support your child. Of course, that requires a working, if not amiable, relationship with your ex.

You and your ex are to be commended for working it out. You took the future decision of care for your child into your own hands instead of some judge who would come up with a silly solution.

Even if two people decide that they can't get along and stay together, there should at least be enough love there from when you created the child that you can sit down like adults and decide on a plan to move forward.

Too often people let their emotions get in the way and want to take the ex to court to soak them for as much as they can get. That builds resentment, a lack of future honesty and cooperation, and hurts the child more than any difference in money would make.

The family court system is like WarGames. The only winning move is not to play. Agree to divorce, split your assets, agree on a child care plan, and have your attorney draft the order for the judge to sign. Yes, judge sign here, and initial, here, here and here. Thanks. Have a nice day.

[doreen]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Why does it have to be that way in "fact"? People are always allowed to change their lifestyles (so long as they stay married and the courts don't get involved). Even if our millionaire friend actually provided luxurious vacations and sports cars to his kids, he is under no legal obligation to continue to do so. Maybe the kid starts acting up in school and both parents decide that he loses his car privileges?

But in a divorce, it is just a straight cash calculation. If the parents want the kid to live a frugal lifestyle, that's okay, but the custodial parent still gets the court allocated amount, and the parent is free to do responsible or irresponsible things with that money. It violates every principle of equity.

Of course, if both parents want the kid to live a frugal lifestyle , nothing precludes them from agreeing on a lower amount of support. The problem is precisely when the parents don't agree on the future lifestyle , and when the rich parent lived opulently before and will continue to live opulently, it doesn't look like a parenting decision to refuse to support the child's similar lifestyle.