A very mild rant about child support

Canvas Shoes

I really disagree–and for the record, I have no dog in this fight, being a married woman with no children.

There simply is no flat rate. If you are just talking about keeping a child alive and with the basics of food, shelter, and clothing, well, it costs almost nothing above the fixed costs of maintaining a household for a single person. Children don’t really need a bedroom of their own–they can sleep in the living room or in the custodial parent’s room, and it doesn’t need to be in the safest area of town–lots of kids already live in rough neighborhoods. And you can dress a child for a couple hundred bucks a year, if you hit Wal-mart clearance sales and Good-willl. And you can eat a fairly heathy diet consisting of rice and beans and fresh vegetables, and it costs you almost nothing. Kids don’t need to go on school-sponsored field-trips or the zoo or take swim lessons at the local Y. They don’t need to ride bikes or go to the library or play sports. All these things are luxuries.

I know people who are sucessfully raising kids with a household income of less than $10,000/year because they have no choice. The vast majority of the 10K is fixed costs–what the actual child costs above and beyond those fixed costs is very, very low–like less than a $100 a month low.

If a non-custodial parent is making $48,000/year (the national average IIRC) it is morally wrong and not it the best interests of society for he/she to be paying $50/month and having his/her child sleep on a cot in a studio apartment, eat rice and beans every day, go to a lousy school, and dress in goodwill castoff, while not owning a book, while not playing a sport, while not exploring the world around them.

What’s odd is that if a child is living in the exact same situation except that there isn’t any non-custodial parent out there failing to contribute, then it isn’t abuse or neglect, or any of those things. If somebody just doesn’t have the resources to give their child any more than the bare necessities. then that’s a shame, but it’s the way it is. But if somebody does have the resources to give their child more and fails to do so, that’s so ethically wrong that I think the law is justified in insuring that it isn’t the case, if for no other reason than the fact that it benefits us all to have as many children as possible grow up with advantages.

They don’t

Hi, my name is black455, and I’m a Child Support Enforcement Technician.

Regarding the OP, there’s something really fucked up going on if the employer is docking your brother-in-law’s whole check. Federal law is supposed to prohibit this kind of thing. It’s probably the employer’s fault, if they are indeed garnishing 100%. We rely on payroll departments to tell us when a support order is more than 50% of a paycheck, and they’re responsible for prorating the deductions. The absent parent is still ultimately responsible for the difference, of course.

I’ve been on the job for a little over two months, and I’m quickly learning the rules of thumb:

[ul]
[li]Did you bring a lawyer to your paternity hearing? Did you even attend it? If the answer to either question is no, then tough shit. File an appeal, in the meantime, you better pay.[/li][li]Unemployed? Hve you filed a motion to have your support reduced? If not, tough shit. I don’t care of you just got laid off; I’m enforcing a court order, and if you don’t pay for two months, I’ll suspend your driver’s license faster than you can say “I ain’t the baby daddy.” Not to mention hauling you in for contempt.[/li][li]On disability, and don’t think you have to pay? The court thinks otherwise. Thanks for saving me the five minutes it would take for me to look you up in the worker’s comp database. We should begin garnishing within the month.[/li][li]Don’t like the way she’s spending the money? Tough shit. File for custody, or shut your mouth and pay.[/li][li]It’s a court order. It’s a court order. It’s a court order. It’s a court order. Tough shit.[/li][/ul]

I’m not saying that any of this applies to any of the cases here; when you hand a greenhorn caseworker upwards of two thousand cases within the first month, have a 10% turnover rate at your agency, and deal with laws that seem to change every other week, then bureaucratic fuckups are bound to happen. Hell, I just dealt with a case where current support was running on a kid who should have emancipated in 1995. But 99% of the complaints I get about how “unfair” the whole system is come from absent parents who aren’t paying in the first place. Oddly enough, more than 3/4 of my cases, rich and poor, meet or exceed their obligations every month, and the complaints I hear from them are few and far between.

YMMV, by state, county, and circumstances, natch.

On preview, what Manda said. In my state, guidelines mandate that support be set as a percentage of both parents incomes minus standard deductions. In other words, it already is a flat rate, in the Steve Forbes sense.

From what I know of child support from being on the receiving end of it, friend no. 1 should get a lawyer and appeal this. Of course, he still has to pay in the meantime, but I would think that an emergency motion could be filed.

For friend no. 2, if he had a divorce decree that says he gets the kids on Fridays at 6pm and she’s withholding them then he needs to bring his decree and a cop to her place when he picks up his kids. My local police informed me that if it’s spelled out in the final, they’ll uphold it and the kids will go with him. I totally understand his not wanting the kids to witness this messy situation–I rolled over and was a doormat for many years for the sake of protecting my kids from this. I can tell you right now, it’s not going to get better. If she thinks she can manipulate him like this, it’s only going to get worse. Better he start documenting this kind of behavior now and consider getting custody himself. Ultimately, it’s what’s best for the kids that matters most and if he’s a good parent, then he needs to be there for them and not let his ex keep him from doing that.

CanvasShoes, my ex is supposed to pay 35% of his paycheck to me as child support. The state of GA bases their table on number of children, and the percentage rises for each additional child.

I have 4 children. Two are mine and his biologically, four are his biologically. I have full custody of all four.

I last got child support 11 months ago. $50 a week for 2 months. That was the first child support I got since July 1999, 3 months after I left him.

Yep, there are definitely problems with ou child support laws, I won’t argue that.

~J

I KNOW there isn’t a flat rate now.

I understand your point and your disagreement somewhat, but where from my post did you get that I was advocating that the non-custodial parent being paying some ridiculous sum such as $50 dollars a month, or one which would have the child living in the very barest survival conditions?

FTR, I was NOT advocating anything of the sort.

What I was saying was that I didn’t consider it fair or equitable that the courts simply arbitrarily take 40-50% of a non-custodial parent’s income, regardless of how much that was, or whether it then left the non-custodial parent living far below the poverty line him/herself.

When I said “flat rate” did you note the quote marks? Meaning when I say “flat rate” meaning something to be worked out and decided upon based on a case by case basis. I am of COURSE not advocating some cut rate poverty amount.

If a non-custodial parent is making $10,000 a year, how is it helpful to the child to have $5000 of that going to the child’s upkeep, rendering it impossible for the non-custodial parent to afford or provide any sort of environment in which the child can visit and maintain a relationship with the non-custodial (henceforth NC) parent? Which, by the way, is something that, unless the NC parent is some abusive moron, is necessary for the child’s wellbeing TOO.

There is a basic dollar amount at which a childs basic needs: adequate food, shelter, educational, cultural, play etc, can be said to be met.

When I was the sole custodial parent of my daughter I was able to very easily provide for her, including a room of her own (she was an only child), appropriate clothing, food etc, despite the fact that I made about 12 buck an hour (this was the 80s), I refused child support. I probably spent about 200-500 per month on various kid related stuff.

My POINT was, there does come a point at which there are many things which are NOT necessary in order for a child to grow healthily emotionally, educationally physically and mentally, such as the LUXURY items I mentioned in my previous post. And by luxury, I do NOT mean clean new clothing, decent food etc. (please). I mean designer labels, their own phones, nannies, etc etc.

imo, It’s not ethical or equitable to make a parent pay 50% of his/her income simply “because he/she ‘can’”.

If the parent makes $48,000 as in your example, why should half of that person’s income go to the upkeep of a child if 10,000 a year would be adequate? and would assist in the provision of your aforementioned good clothing, food, educational supplies, field trips etc)? PS, I’m not saying 10,000 would, I’m just using it as an example.

During the marriage the parents weren’t advocated by the courts that half of the person who earned the most money’s income MUST be spent solely on the child. So, what changes once the parents split up?

Why is it suddenly decreed by the courts that 50% of the NC parent’s income MUST be spent on the child, DESPITE the fact that it didn’t take near that much prior to the divorce?

It’s as if, the custodial parent is suddenly in no way responsible for the child’s upkeep. The custodial parent needs to be responbible and have a reasonable job, decent place to live he/she then has her income supplemented by the NC parent’s CS payment, which THEN goes for upkeep of the child.

Now, I’m ALL for hunting down and making the true deadbeat dads help in the upkeep of their children, but what I’m talking about it let’s get it back to where it’s truly “fair and equitable”.

And imho, it’s taken a definite turn into OVERBOARD.

FTR, I don’t have “dog in the fight” either. The person I mentioned isn’t a boyfriend or relative, just an acquaintance.

I am a little confused about what it is you are arguing here.

First, I’m not advocating that child support should always be set at 50% of the noncustodial parent’s income, and as far as I know, that’s not the norm: Jaade just pointed out that in Georgia, someone paying child support for four kids pays 35% of their income in child support.

Second, I asummed that what you mean by a “flat rate” was that the amount people pay for child support should be the same, regardless of the income of the non-custodial parent, or that there should be a “maximum” cap set at where a child’s basic needs are met, and the amount mandated can be lower, but never higher, than this. Is this a fair summary of your position?

My point is this: the cost of keeping a child alive and healthy, above and beyond the fixed costs of running the household–the costs that would have to be paid anyways–is negligible. It can’t be more than $100/month. So if we were to have “flat rate” of half of what it costs to keep a child healthy about and beyond the fixed costs of running a household, that flat rate would be like the ballpark of $50/month.

You might quibble with number a bit there, but the “flat rate” would have to be in that ballpark. And I think that is much to low if the noncustodial parent has an “average” income. If the non-custodial parent has an “average” income, it is not acceptable for him/her to support his/her children only to the point of “adequate”.

I never collected a dime. Never went to court…I figured he would have NO SAY over what happened with our son that way. He never offered to pay, nice guy that he was. He once gave my kid a 4-wheel ATV thingy and then TOOK IT BACK a few months later. He’s dead now. Boo fucking hoo.

What’s the point of going to work at all for 100% garnishment.

I don’t know this for sure but I think in NYS there is a flat rate of garnsment based the number of children, something like one child = 18%, 2 = 13% each, 3 = 10% each up to the max garshmnet allowed. I think this is based on if you were a intact family, you income would go (for a 3 person fam) 33% to you, 33% to your spouse and 33% to the child. For some reason the amount to the child is 1/2, maybe because the other spouse is also contrubuting. THis is how it was explained to me, I haop I never have to know more about it.

Thanks for all the replies, I will have to ask friend number one what they said happened when they figured out that they were taking way too much money, I am assuming its a mess up. I wasn’t saying that he shouldn’t have to pay child support at all or anything,

As for the other guy, You all are right, I am sure I don’t have the whole story, I am just repeating some of the things he has told me about, and some of it I have been around for. He is indeed trying to find a way to get custody of his children. I Know she can spend the money on whatever she wants, but it seems to me she should be spending some of it on the kids. She spends the whole child support on her car payment, and then she calls him up and asks him for more money. If he doesn’t have it, Then she starts in on how he is trying to keep money from her, and how she is taking him back to court because he is lying about not having any money. His first lawyer said its near impossible to get custody from a mother. I told him he needs to get another lawyer. If the kids are dirty and need clothing everytime he gets to pick them up, There is something wrong.

And because you never went to court paternity is not established. Because it is not established your son does not get the social security he would otherwise be entitled to. Think of how much you would be crying your ex was a better provider dead than alive. Also, had he decided to take you to court he could have had that say whether or not he was providing money.

I can never rely on my daughters child support. I think he is working right now because the checks have been more or less consistant this summer. I am supposed to get 125$ per month. I believe that is the lowest amount that Wisconsin will award. It covered one week a month of child care in a university town that I lived in. Now that she is in school it does actually pay for the after school care. It is money that is helpfull to my household, but we have learned not to count on it.

Why shouldn’t children have somewhat the same lifestyle as before a divorce? They didn’t get the divorce. Why should they have the bare essentials at mom’s house and a swimming pool and their own car at dad’s. It is often enough that the non-custodial parent tries to buy their affection, why should the courts give them more ammunition. As it is, many of the children in poverty are there because of divorce.

For the sake of the children people need to quit being such asses about child support. From the father who quits his job and puts everything in his girlfriend’s name in order to avoid paying his child support and get back at his ex; to the woman who accuses her ex of child abuse at trial in order to make sure she has full custody; these people need to quit. Mothers need to quit dressing their kids up in their absolute worst clothes during visitation in hopes of sucking a new pair of shoes out of dad, and fathers need to quit buying new games and toys that can only live at dad’s house. The court needs to stop assuming mothers are the best choice of full custody.

Can I get an Amen!

I’m going to try and not take too much umbrage at this remark. My ex-husband lives on the outside of nowhere, (but even aside from that, most men I know don’t encourage children to be as careful with their good clothes and shoes as a mom does), so I DO dress my boys in their less than spectacular clothes to go to their Dad’s house. They spend most of their time with him camping, in the park, in the yard, hiking and such. I’m NOT going to put their good school clothes on them just so they can come back ruined. I have sent them in their school clothes in the past. Experience taught me this was not a good idea since things come back with ‘rips from crawling through the barbed wire fence’, ‘singe marks from the campfire’, and blood and tears from ‘I wrecked my bike on the gravel road’.I don’t expect him to buy them anything to wear. He knows that if they have an event or church function all he has to do is say so, and I send nicer clothes for them to wear on that day.
I think before you accuse anyone of trying to ‘suck a new pair of shoes’ out of anyone, you should try to have an idea of the details of the situation. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but sometimes a kid is in his grubs because he’s going to be spending his time in a less than pristine environment.

FaerieBeth I am not accusing you of any such thing, and it certainly was not aimed at you, because as far as I can tell we have been pretty much arguing the same side of the child support thing. It is a very different thing sending a child to his dad dressed appropriatly for the activities that are likely to be participated in. What I am talking about has very little to do with shoes it is about the game of Gotchya that divorced people continue to play with their kids in the middle. Shoes are incidental.

Understood, furlibusea, and as I said, I didn’t take too much umbrage. I know it happens. I like to think of myself as the Good Ex-Wife of the North, and my ex-husband and I have a pretty good relationship about the kids. I just wish there wasn’t such a stain on the notion of sharing custody of children, but a few bad apples will ruin it for the rest of us.

Heck, the truth is a lot of bad apples make it damn hard for the rest of us to get along. I sometimes chafe at my reputation as an ex-wife, custodial support receiving mom being earned by actions other than my own. I’m rambling now. Not enough caffeine today, and I expect my oldest two home from their wilderness weekend with Dad at 8pm.

I wasn’t upset at anything anyone said…just downhearted about how bad it truly has gotten for so many.

FB

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Manda JO *
**I am a little confused about what it is you are arguing here.

First, I’m not advocating that child support should always be set at 50% of the noncustodial parent’s income, and as far as I know, that’s not the norm: Jaade just pointed out that in Georgia, someone paying child support for four kids pays 35% of their income in child support.**

[quote]

Yes, I know you weren’t, however, in many cases what happens is that regardless of a person’s actual income, or ability to pay, the amount gets set at an arbitrary percentage of their income. Sorry for the 50%, that just happens to be what my friend has had to pay, and others that I’ve heard of. But you’re right, generally it’s 35% or so.

Probably my fault for not taking the time to clarify what I meant by “flat rate”. I believe that there should be a fair and equitable cap. But I believe that on a case by case basis, that cap should be able to be adjusted either way.

What I’m arguing is the arbitrary “oh, well the NC parent has to pay 35% of his/her income” that seems to be the norm for the CSED regardless of the parents ability to pay, or the child actually needing a certain amount each month.

For instance, the NC parent makes 300,000 a year. Why should that parent have to pay 100,000 a year in child support? The courts did not come in and mandate that 100,000 be specifically and ONLY spent on the upkeep and raising of that child BEFORE the divorce, so why, after the divorce does it simply turn into a numbers game?

A child does NOT need 100,000 a year in order to be taken care of well.

And as in my example, I only made 12 bucks an hour, but I took VERY good care of my daughter, there IS a general and basic rate (of COURSE adjusted on geography and case by case depending upon number of children, special needs etc) at which it can be said that the NC parent has fairly and equitably contributed his share.

I agree, I don’t think it SHOULD be adjusted downward. Unless the NC parent is not able to pay it and still live in such a way as to also take part in his/her child’s life. What I think is unfair is the arbitrary adjustment UPWARD dependent upon what the NC parent’s income, NOT the needs of the child.

I’m not sure where you came up with a number from me. My definition of “flat rate” was that it would be a number which would be in a range adequate to assist in caring for the child. I did NOT put that I thought it should be 50 dollars a month or less.

However, I don’t think it’s in the best interests of the child to monetarily, emotionally and psychologically bankrupt their NC parent merely to force him/her to work three jobs and live in a dumpster (slight exaggerations) in an attempt meet some arbitrary dollar amount.

If the NC parent is paying a decent amount, and the custodial parent IS doing their fair share as well, there’s no reason why a “flat rate” of say 100-150 a month wouldn’t be fair and reasonable for most people.

Again, my argument was against the 35% of the NC parents income no matter how high, or low that income was.

DadBLASTED ancient eroding eyesight!!! grr, (sorry about the missed coding above, I SWEAR I got the damn second “b”).

I agree, my point was that the courts need to guard against swinging too far the other way also. And in some cases they do.

My son’s father is, imho, the best choice for custodial parent. But I was the one who forced the issue of “We will NOT use this chld as a pawn, no matter how much we may hate each other. We will do everything in our power as a team to make sure that HIS needs and wants are met”.

Until my son and his father moved to “the Kenai” (150 miles south), we shared custody, each had him half the week. Upon his dad’s choice to move to the Kenai, we discussed it and decided that we would try having my son live with dad first, and see how that went.

I was not married to my son’s father. And despite him being really bad boyfriend/husband material, he turned out to be great dad material. We have not had any court child support agreements. We discuss and agree upon what is right and fair for me to assist with. I generally end up buying “big ticket” items like glasses and the visits to the eye doctor, or other doctor bills etc, while dad pays for day-to-day items.

I’m very lucky that I didn’t have to go through the gameplaying dragging-the-kid-through-the-mud crap that some people experience with the break up of the family.

FTR? I buy really expensive (but really NOISY) toys, and they do NOT “live at mom’s house” they go home to dad’s. :smiley:

Most, if not all states have information regarding how child support is set on-line. They detail how c/s is set, how it is collected, and through what means c/s can be collected.

In Minnesota child support is set on a sliding percentage. Because my ex nets over $1000/mo, child support is 25% of his net for one child. Two children would be 30% net, and so on. Many states also “add on” additional charging for child care and medical support, if needed. I pay for medical/dental insurance for our child, so my ex pays a small percentage of it (the calculations are long and tricky. He does not pay 1/2, but rather they adjust our incomes and he pays a percentage. It’s approximately 20% of the cost). Note though, it is not the child support agency that set this, it is the court order signed by a judge. The child support agency has NOTHING to do with what amount is ordered, it is the state legislature that signs off on how c/s is set, and judges who are the arbitors of said laws.

Many of the problems/situations I’ve read about here are due to bad child support systems. I can tell you stories that would make you weep for the welfare of our children based on what other states do. We have a sad cartoon up about Cook Co Illinois being a black hole for child support. We joke about California using stone tablets and chisels. And you know who is suffering for the governmental stupidity? The kids.

And yes, there are evil parents out there. Have many on my caseload. As has been said above, if there are problems regarding visitation based on a court order that is not being enforced, YOU have to be the one to change it and/or enforce it. In Minnesota, child support officers do not have the ability to help with visitation issues. We are simply money grubbers. I can, however, refer you to many places that can assist you.

Regarding being told it’s neigh on impossible for a father to get custody. Ten years ago I would have agreed. In many states that is not entirely true. There has been a steady push by fathers organizations to instill equality in the proceedings. Yes, it may be a fight. Yes, it is not fair. But if it is that important to you, you must do what it takes. As the courts see more men fighting for custody, it will become more of the norm than the exception.

Regarding disappearing money: Federal law states that child support paid or due when the child receives cash public assistance (TANF/PA/AFDC), the funds become assigned to the state for the durantion of the expendature of said public funds. If child support is not paid, the arrears are due the public agency. If medical support is ordered aside from child support, and the child receives public medical assistance, those funds also become assigned to the public agency. In Minnesota, food stamp funds are not assigned. But that’s here, may not be so in other states.

Enforcement remedies: (I know, it IS bad terminology). Federal law allows us to garnish wages, RSDI (not SSI), sieze bank accounts, etc. Income withholding is allowed per court order, be it from through your employer, your workmans comp, or your RSDI. Siezing bank accounts (levy action) is a bit different. It is fairly new. Again, here in Minnesota we have to jump through many hoops in order to do so. In the past two years when we have had the ability to do levies, I have done 6. In each case, the obligor MUST meet certain criteria. If there is a whiff of doubt whether the criteria might not be met, I stop the action. If I have knowledge of a case that should be addressed by the parties, I may use the action as leverage for them to get their butts back into court to have the matter resolved (ie, I KNOW he has had the child for the last year, but support is still charging. I CAN’T stop the support without a new court order. I will give him 30 days to file a motion- I think it’s pretty fair).

I could go on… but this is a tome enough.

Obviously, it varies from state to state, but when I tried to get CS from my ex-husband, I had to give a full accounting of how I spent my money. I had to provide 6 month’s worth of paycheck stubs, and show receipts for everything I spent money on, including rent, my car payment, car insurance, car repair, health insurance, doctor bills, child care, groceries, dry-cleaning bills, cable, electric bills, phone bills, newspapers, EVERYTHING.
My expenses were gone through by the courts and his lawyer with a fine-tooth comb. Every penny I spent was questioned and re-questioned. It was humilating.

All my ex had to do was show up with a month’s worth of paycheck stubs. :rolleyes:

And I would be the first to agree that is very wrong, Bibliocat.

The Maryland website does show how c/s is calculated (here), and it also links you to the relevant statutes. Minnesota tried to something similar where child support would be set based on a percentage of actual costs to raise the child (which would include a hearing every 6 months to review how the c/s was spent, etc-- it fell like a lead balloon as there isn’t enough judges/court time available for something like that).

However, divorces are different than establishing support. Your ex seemed to have a pretty nasty attorney. Did you have one also? Why didn’t your ex have to pony up the same substantiating information as you did?

While I agree with you that one parent shouldn’t be bankrupted in order to satisfy some arbitrary percentage, I think you’re way underestimating a fair rate. My daycare bill alone is $250 a week. Then there’s diapers, food, medicine, health insurance, clothes, etc. I would consider $100 a month a huge insult. It would feel like the payor was simply passing down a token amount to keep me mollified, without any real consideration for the reality of child-related costs.
And, FWIW, I don’t get any child support and never have. But if I did, I’d want it to be an equitable amount and not simply a pat on the head and an extra 100 to keep me quiet.