# Child support amounts are grossly unfair **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 10, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478 "2014-06-10T16:06:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/21 "2014-06-10T17:43:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Saying that a child has a “right” to a better life just because the parents are wealthy is the same thing as saying that this child has more rights than the child of poor parents. Parental obligations, societal expectations?-yes. Right?-no. It’s ‘the same thing’ as saying that the marital status of the parents should make no difference to their obligations towards their own children. Yes, it sucks that some are born into wealthy families and others are not - we do not live in a world of perfect equality. But as long as this remains true, parents will continue to, legally, owe duties to their own children, and not to some random child not related to them. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/22 "2014-06-10T17:50:28Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Then my response would be that she’s not entitled t to the house. If you lose your job, you move to a small place, sell off your car, and use the bus. If she can’t afford the house, she should move somewhere smaller > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Didn’t the living space available to her and the child _increase_ when he moved out? If it is ordained that the child and mother be allowed to maintain their lives they way they were accustomed before the divorce, then shouldn’t they be asked to move into a appropriately smaller abode that gives them exactly that? Did both of you miss the last 10 years or something? Subprime lending crisis, housing market crash, etc.? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/23 "2014-06-10T17:56:32Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Be that as it may, it still doesn’t amount to the amount of a full-time, non-minimum wage job. Its extra money, is what I’m saying. If you dispute the amount, at least agree with the concept. I’m not comfortable with taking this concept on faith. You need to cite this. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Then my response would be that she’s not entitled t to the house. If you lose your job, you move to a small place, sell off your car, and use the bus. If she can’t afford the house, she should move somewhere smaller This is where we cross into difficult territory. I think there are some aspects of child support that might be unfair- particularly if they assume the noncustodial parent will always earn at the same level and don’t get properly adjusted, for example. But what you’re doing here is forcing a parent to choose between staying in a marriage that isn’t working and uprooting his or her life (and probably that of the child’s) in a very radical way because she’s getting divorced. That seems unfair to the child and to the parent who gets custody. My understanding is that it’s already very hard to raise a child on your own and stay out of poverty. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/24 "2014-06-10T17:58:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post > Saying that a child has a “right” to a better life just because the parents are wealthy is the same thing as saying that this child has more rights than the child of poor parents. Parental obligations, societal expectations?-yes. Right?-no. Sure. It is not a Constitutional “right,” it is a “parental obligation,” enforced by the court. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/25 "2014-06-10T18:30:33Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Of course, if both divorcing parents agree that the child should live more frugally after the divorce, for whatever reason, there’s no problem. Their child, their rules, and society has no business interfering with that. > > But: we’re not talking cases of parental agreement here, are we? We’re talking situations in which one parent thinks the child should get more material support than the other parent is in favor of. > > And when parents can’t or won’t fulfill their basic parental duty of figuring out a mutually agreed-upon way to raise their mutual child, that’s when the courts step in. This seems like a completely specious argument. You’re making it seem as if this is just some argument about the best interests of the child, or different approaches to raising children. In reality, 100% of these disputes involve the ex-spouse who wants their hands on the money trying to get the other spouse to shell out, and the one who has to do the paying resisting. You will not find situations where the paying spouse is in court trying to force the custodial parent to accept more child support because they feel it’s in the best interests of their child, and the custodial parent fighting back that they prefer to have their child live a less extravagent lifestyle. So this high-minded talk about the “basic parental duty of figuring out a mutually agreed-upon way to raise their mutual child” is complete nonsense. It’s all about using the kid to squeeze as much money as possible out their ex. Nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/26 "2014-06-10T18:43:41Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Be that as it may, it still doesn’t amount to the amount of a full-time, non-minimum wage job. Its extra money, is what I’m saying. If you dispute the amount, at least agree with the concept. The child is bringing in money that adds up to a net positive subtracting the expenses of raising it. “extra money” What’s that? I’ve never heard of this concept. True story - As a teenager I wanted some useless thing and I asked my parents to borrow some money to buy it. I had a repayment plan ready as part of my proposal and everything. My dad gave me the money I asked for but told me I didn’t have to pay him back. He said, “There is no amount you could pay me that would make up for what you owe me. This will be part of the tally” Children aren’t profit centers. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/27 "2014-06-10T18:49:59Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > My solution to this is that all child payments should be based on a formula, maybe adjusted by state or county based on cost of living where the child resides, but that formula should be tied closely to the cost of raising a child. No matter how rich the parent is, the payments are the same for everyone and should be increased only due to circumstances such as medical bills, needs a babysitter, or some other extreme. If we use the $241080 figure from above, that comes out to about $1100 per month. None of this $16000 a month payments for anyone, no child is worth that much. Children have the right to live with food, shelter, and clothing, but not sports cars, mansions, and European vacations. > > Doing so would abate the practice, perhaps accusingly made towards certain types of women, of getting pregnant by famous and rich men for money. If she can only expect a thousand a month, maybe some people will not attempt such a morally questionable pursuit. Maybe it would be more trouble than its worth. You and I have certainly had our differences at times, but I’m in complete agreement with everything you’ve written here. The divorce laws, as they exist in this country, are nuts, and the child support payment amounts are one of the nuttiest aspects of them. It’s a prime example of how life for ordinary Americans has become more and more subject to the arbitrary whims of judges and other government employees. There’s no justification for letting courts set arbitrary amounts of money that one individual must pay to another. And you are right, also, that the current system gives women a strong financial motivation to get pregnant by a wealthy man, and possibly even to use deception is doing so. Doubtlessly some women have gotten pregnant for this reason. ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/28 "2014-06-10T18:52:04Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If it _is_ a right, why is this right only enforced in this circumstance? If a parent is fired and the income is greatly lessened, is the parent’s former employer obligated to pay child support to make up that gap? Dave Foley, of Kids in the Hall fame, went through a pretty terrible ordeal in Canada with his child support obligations. The law there requires the support payments be set at a level to keep a child living at the same lifestyle as when the parents split up. At the time of his divorce he was making a million dollars a year and his support payments were set at a high level. However, his career tanked and his earnings dropped to very little, and he couldn’t afford the amounts set by the courts anymore. He ended up having to hide out in the US because if he went back to Canada he would have been arrested - basically for not continuing to make a million dollars a year. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/29 "2014-06-10T18:54:06Z")
My own feeling is similar to the OP. There should be a base minimum, but after that it should be up the parent. Besides for being what’s morally right IMO, it has the added benefit that it would incent the custodial spouse and the child themselves to seek a positive relationship with the non-custodial spouse. As opposed to the situation now, where support is guarenteed by court order, so that frequently no one has much incentive to treat the guy like anything other than an ATM machine. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/30 "2014-06-10T18:54:26Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Why not is because we don’t presume a lifestyle right that kids should have beyond food, shelter, and clothing. If we do, like Czarcasm said, why not make employers of fired parents pay for the child? Why not taxpayers pay all children to living like Ms. Berry’s kid’s lifestyle? Because, as decried in a recent thread on the Straight Dope Message Board, we designate that obligation to the parents. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/31 "2014-06-10T18:54:34Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > You and I have certainly had our differences at times, but I’m in complete agreement with everything you’ve written here. The divorce laws, as they exist in this country, are nuts, and the child support payment amounts are one of the nuttiest aspects of them. It’s a prime example of how life for ordinary Americans has become more and more subject to the arbitrary whims of judges and other government employees. There’s no justification for letting courts set arbitrary amounts of money that one individual must pay to another. > > And you are right, also, that the current system gives women a strong financial motivation to get pregnant by a wealthy man, and possibly even to use deception is doing so. Doubtlessly some women have gotten pregnant for this reason. Wouldn’t the joke be on them if the rich guy got joint or sole custody? “Thanks for carrying the kid for nine months. I always wanted another kid. I just love kids. He’ll have a great life - all the best schools, live in a mansion, the works. See ya later.” ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/32 "2014-06-10T19:11:58Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Wouldn’t the joke be on them if the rich guy got joint or sole custody? > > “Thanks for carrying the kid for nine months. I always wanted another kid. I just love kids. He’ll have a great life - all the best schools, live in a mansion, the works. See ya later.” Given the way that the laws in this country are slanted against men in custody disputes, that’s bloody unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/33 "2014-06-10T19:19:15Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Given the way that the laws in this country are slanted against men in custody disputes, that’s bloody unlikely. What way is that? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/34 "2014-06-10T19:21:41Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Wouldn’t the joke be on them if the rich guy got joint or sole custody? > > “Thanks for carrying the kid for nine months. I always wanted another kid. I just love kids. He’ll have a great life - all the best schools, live in a mansion, the works. See ya later.” You mean kind of like in the OP? ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/35 "2014-06-10T19:27:36Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > My solution to this is that all child payments should be based on a formula, maybe adjusted by state or county based on cost of living where the child resides, but that formula should be tied closely to the cost of raising a child. No matter how rich the parent is, the payments are the same for everyone and should be increased only due to circumstances such as medical bills, needs a babysitter, or some other extreme. If we use the $241080 figure from above, that comes out to about $1100 per month. None of this $16000 a month payments for anyone, no child is worth that much. Children have the right to live with food, shelter, and clothing, but not sports cars, mansions, and European vacations. Would this not be a recipe for parental alienation? Kid lives with the poorer parent in a dinky two-bedroom apartment and walks to school–no fancy clothes or European vacations. Then Kid goes to visit richer parent for the weekend and suddenly is showered with the fancy bedroom and the pony and the endless computer games and the fancy birthday party with the clowns and the trip to the beach and the zoo and whatnot, then come Sunday night Kid gets packed off to the dinky two-bedroom apartment again. Many kids are frankly materialistic–when they see all the cool toys at Rich Parent’s house, and realize they can’t have all that while living most of the time at Poor Parent’s house, well, there’s a solution to that. Rich Parent simply buys the kid’s affection. Maintaining a somewhat similar lifestyle while at the primary and the nonprimary custodial parent’s house evens the playing field (and yes, quite frequently in divorce the child is a weapon). ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/36 "2014-06-10T19:35:03Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > You mean kind of like in the OP? The people in the OP were, I understand, both rich. Only the woman was richer than the guy by an order of magnitude and they share joint custody after a “vicious court battle”. So no, not really, as it appears there is no issue with the couple highlighted in the OP that the relatively “poorer” guy had a child with the richer woman for the purpose of extracting money out of her. Allegedly, he’s a famous male model and restaurant owner. This is a battle between the wealthy. ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/37 "2014-06-10T19:40:07Z")
> [@GrandWino](#): > > Dave Foley, of Kids in the Hall fame, went through a pretty terrible ordeal in Canada with his child support obligations. The law there requires the support payments be set at a level to keep a child living at the same lifestyle as when the parents split up. At the time of his divorce he was making a million dollars a year and his support payments were set at a high level. However, his career tanked and his earnings dropped to very little, and he couldn’t afford the amounts set by the courts anymore. He ended up having to hide out in the US because if he went back to Canada he would have been arrested - basically for not continuing to make a million dollars a year. Which I’ve heard about and seems to have been a quirk unique to Ontario Family Law. It does seem to have been ironed out, though, as he’s currently shooting a TV series in Canada. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/38 "2014-06-10T19:50:24Z")
> [@GrandWino](#): > > Dave Foley, of Kids in the Hall fame, went through a pretty terrible ordeal in Canada with his child support obligations. The law there requires the support payments be set at a level to keep a child living at the same lifestyle as when the parents split up. At the time of his divorce he was making a million dollars a year and his support payments were set at a high level. However, his career tanked and his earnings dropped to very little, and he couldn’t afford the amounts set by the courts anymore. He ended up having to hide out in the US because if he went back to Canada he would have been arrested - basically for not continuing to make a million dollars a year. Says Dave Foley. I am a fan of his comedy, but I don’t think you can accept his portrayal of the circumstances as gospel. Even taking him at his word that he was ordered to pay $17k/month, he was over $500k behind when he started airing his dirty laundry. That is almost 3 years of no payment, and even longer if he partially paid. Why didn’t he try to get his amounts adjusted during that time? Or why didn’t offer to take his kid half the time to reduce his obligations? They whole story seems fishy to me, and his bitterness against his “cunt” wife doesn’t make me think he is an truthful, unbiased reporter. > [@slash2k](#): > > Would this not be a recipe for parental alienation? > > Kid lives with the poorer parent in a dinky two-bedroom apartment and walks to school–no fancy clothes or European vacations. Then Kid goes to visit richer parent for the weekend and suddenly is showered with the fancy bedroom and the pony and the endless computer games and the fancy birthday party with the clowns and the trip to the beach and the zoo and whatnot, then come Sunday night Kid gets packed off to the dinky two-bedroom apartment again. > > Many kids are frankly materialistic–when they see all the cool toys at Rich Parent’s house, and realize they can’t have all that while living most of the time at Poor Parent’s house, well, there’s a solution to that. Rich Parent simply buys the kid’s affection. > > Maintaining a somewhat similar lifestyle while at the primary and the nonprimary custodial parent’s house evens the playing field (and yes, quite frequently in divorce the child is a weapon). Agreed. It also would would be a means to coerce one partner to stay with the richer one in order to avoid being financially destitute. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/39 "2014-06-10T19:59:07Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Wouldn’t the joke be on them if the rich guy got joint or sole custody? > > “Thanks for carrying the kid for nine months. I always wanted another kid. I just love kids. He’ll have a great life - all the best schools, live in a mansion, the works. See ya later.” But the way it works, the joke is on the rich guy. “We love kids too. He’s going to have a great life - all the best schools, live in a mansion, the works. All paid for by you. But he’s going to have all these things while living with your ex. To whom you will pay the money to support this lifestyle. See ya later.” ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/40 "2014-06-10T20:04:40Z")
This seems to be a more accurate [account](http://www.popeater.com/2011/03/09/dave-foley-finances-child-support-tabatha-southey/) of the Foley situation: > [@](#): > > At a Nov. 15 default hearing in Toronto, a judge from the Ontario Court of Justice – **using information including Foley’s most recent tax return and credit card bills** – upheld the existing child support agreement that says Foley must pay his ex-wife and their two sons child support of $10,700, which has been indexed for inflation. (Southey waived her right to spousal support when they divorced.) > > He also has to pay an additional $5,000 a month toward the $589,082 in arrears that he has racked up since August 2003. (Southey’s lawyer, Jacqueline Mills, says the arrears figure is actually higher because it does not include costs like paying off the mortgage of the home they shared, to which he had also agreed.) > > Since the Nov. 15 hearing, Foley still has not paid Southey for December, January or February, says Mills. > > Foley lost a critical motion to vary the child support agreement in 2007, long after he had stopped working on the hit NBC sitcom, ‘NewsRadio,’ which ended in 1999. The judge at that time refused to modify it. **He had planned to seek a second variance later on, but did not go through with it, says Himelfarb.** > > Southey’s lawyer told PopEater via e-mail that "Mr. Foley agreed, voluntarily, with legal advice, to pay $10,700 a month to support his children. He obviously agreed at that time that their expenses were in that range and that was their lifestyle. He agreed that this was what was required to maintain them in the lifestyle they were accustomed to. > > “On the strength of that promise, Ms. Southey, with a grade 9 education, agreed to forego spousal support despite the fact that her income was totally uncertain and likely minimal. Mr. Foley acknowledged this his income could increase and he would not be required to pay more child support. He acknowledged that he was aware that his income could decrease and he would still have to pay the same amount. This was the deal that he voluntarily struck. His wife relied on his agreement to her detriment.” > > Despite the court-ordered agreement, " **He stopped paying the agreed upon child support years ago when his income was still very high and when he still had the financial resources to comply with the agreement," says Mills. “He chose not to do so. The current order deals with the arrears that accumulated when his income was high but he did not pay what he agreed to pay.”** Seems like he is basically a deadbeat to me. The story reported at that link is more in keeping with that the numbers tell us. Given this guy was apparently not paying child support when he was “keeping his pool heated to 95 degrees”, it’s hard to paint him as a sympathetic figure. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478.md?page=3)