# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/101 "2014-06-11T19:57:15Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > All these questions seem to be the same basic question. And the answers are: in those particular cases it shouldn’t change, and he shouldn’t challenge it, and he shouldn’t win. All I’ve been saying is that as a practical matter this is the likeliest scenario, in response to Malthus’ suggestion. As I wrote in one of my earlier posts on this subject (emphasis added): The reason why “the joke is on the rich guy” in that case, is because as a practical matter he is going to get the short end of the stick, as compared to a married situation. He is going to be providing the same money, but with much less input into how it’s spent, much less influence over how his child is raised, and much less ability to form a strong relationship with the kid. By contrast, the gold-digger gets the gold and a free and unobstructed hand in raising the kid. > > Who gets the last laugh? I simply do not know if this is true. I suspect it isn’t. I assume a lot would depend on the relative situations of the two parents. Ideally, the court would look to them to see who would make the better parent, assuming joint custody isn’t on the table; and while the court would not factor in “she’s a golddigger” into the decision, chances are that a women who actually was a “golddigger” may lack the stability in her life that would make for promising parental material, using the ‘best interests of the child’ test. I leave ot to those with a familiy law background to chime in. ---
**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 11, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/102 "2014-06-11T20:05:51Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > chances are that a women who actually was a “golddigger” may lack the stability in her life that would make for promising parental material, using the ‘best interests of the child’ test. Why would you say that? A gold-digger is just someone who hooks on to a rich person for their money. All sorts of intelligent and stable people have been doing this for thousands of years. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/103 "2014-06-11T20:14:12Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Why would you say that? > > A gold-digger is just someone who hooks on to a rich person for their money. All sorts of intelligent and stable people have been doing this for thousands of years. Negative stereotypes about gold-diggers on my part. All the ones I have actually met have appeared to me to be damaged as people. I see them from time to time, as I’m a lawyer myself and so are many of my friends and people I know; they sometimes attract this type. From these observations I do think there is a certain correlation between “being a golddigger” and “not really good parent material”, but I’m willing to accept that this may be confirmation bias on my part: after all, the ones who do not meet the negative stereotypes, may not be easily spotted as golddiggers. ---
**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 11, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/104 "2014-06-11T20:21:44Z")
Well here’s the Onion’s take: [Housewife Charged In Sex-For-Security Scam](http://www.theonion.com/articles/housewife-charged-in-sexforsecurity-scam,1773/) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/105 "2014-06-11T20:28:57Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Well here’s the Onion’s take: [Housewife Charged In Sex-For-Security Scam](http://www.theonion.com/articles/housewife-charged-in-sexforsecurity-scam,1773/) Well, yeah. The joke “works” because people know, on a fundamental level, that there is a real difference between an ordinary loving relationship - including one of the “traditional” sort, male breadwinner, female homemaker - and prostitution, or for that matter, a total “golddigger”. That’s what makes the Onion article funny. Sometimes, I get the idea that, for some people, this isn’t a “joke” - they seriously believe there isn’t really a difference. In part, that seems to fuel the angst about paying child support. ---
**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 11, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/106 "2014-06-11T20:32:12Z")
I would say the exact opposite. The angst is precisely because there **is** a difference between supporting someone as part of an ordinary loving relationship and supporting someone in it’s absence out of responsibility and legal obligations. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/107 "2014-06-11T20:35:14Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I would say the exact opposite. > > The angst is precisely because there **is** a difference between supporting someone as part of an ordinary loving relationship and supporting someone in it’s absence out of responsibility and legal obligations. The person being supported here is the child. That “loving relationship” presumably has not ended. ---
**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 11, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/108 "2014-06-11T20:38:09Z")
A lot of the angst is over the fact that the money is controlled by the ex, and the ex also lives off it to a large extent, as discussed upthread. But in addition, it’s hard for a lot of people to keep up the same type of relationship with a non-custodial kid as for someone in their household, especially if - as is frequently the case - the custodial spouse is not interested in encouraging it or the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/109 "2014-06-11T20:47:31Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Call me a naive old maid, but I was under the impression that people who have children generally _want_ to give them care and advantages to the extent of their ability. Why should we expect family courts to operate under the assumption that parents who get divorced suddenly want to pay as little as possible for supporting **their own children**? I think that’s the key to the question right there. In an amicable, non-contentious divorce where both parties are acting like decent human beings, I would fully expect a wealthy parent to want to continue to generously support the comforts and well-being of his child. If the wealthy partner wants to be a jerk and is willing to disadvantage his own child out of vindictive spite against the custodial parent, then it’s a legitimate role for the court to rule that he can’t. And $16K a month is peanuts for someone like Berry. BTW, I have personally never been on either the giving or receiving end of child support payments, but as a male I statistically represent the sector overwhelmingly more likely to be the payer in this sort of deal, and if I was in that situation I’d just do it voluntarily. > [@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. Methinks there’s much more here than meets the eye. Support payments are not supposed to be punitive or drive the person to bankruptcy, and there are procedures in place to adjust payments in such circumstances (in an amicable divorce, partners can make their own arrangements without legal intervention). From what I’ve read about the Foley case, he wasn’t living up to his obligations back when he _ **was** _ making big money, and the trouble he was in had to do with accumulated back payments that he failed to make at the time. Further, he did appeal several times to have the payments reduced, and after reviewing all the circumstances his appeals were denied, presumably for good reason. I believe the ex-wife’s lawyer claimed that among other things he failed to provide an accounting of his current income as required. So all in all it seems that Foley isn’t quite the innocent victim you make him out to be. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2014, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/110 "2014-06-12T05:09:51Z")
[QUOTE=YogSoSoth] I’m saying that it is no great tragedy if a rich child is taken out of his mansion and placed in a single room apartment with his poor father due to a divorce. There is no requirement to preserve that child’s lifestyle. Circumstances change and its more fair for him to adjust than for a court to punish the other parent [/QUOTE] Right. As between the child who has no control over events and no resources, and the parent who has money and has broken up with his/her spouse, it’s more fair that the child bear the burden of the changed circumstances than the adult who is at least partly responsible for those changed circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2014, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/111 "2014-06-12T05:22:53Z")
[QUOTE=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 [/QUOTE] So in addition to placing the burden of the financial consequences of the divorce on the children, not the parent, you have the secondary proposal that child support payments should be more onerous for low-income parents than for richer parents. If you just use a flat rate of $1100, that will be a higher percentage of the low-income parent’s total income than it would be for a rich parent. Low-income parents will pay proportionately more in child support than rich parents, if their personal circumstances aren’t taken into account. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2014, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/112 "2014-06-12T05:25:50Z")
[QUOTE=YogSosoth] 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. [/QUOTE] Do you have any evidence at all that this is a widespread problem? or is it simply a figment of your imagination? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2014, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/113 "2014-06-12T05:41:15Z")
hit save instead of preview ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2014, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/114 "2014-06-12T11:37:23Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > So in addition to placing the burden of the financial consequences of the divorce on the children, not the parent, you have the secondary proposal that child support payments should be more onerous for low-income parents than for richer parents. > > If you just use a flat rate of $1100, that will be a higher percentage of the low-income parent’s total income than it would be for a rich parent. Low-income parents will pay proportionately more in child support than rich parents, if their personal circumstances aren’t taken into account. Allow me to offer a modest counterproposal, then. We institute a general tax, and all custodians of children get a flat $1100, paid by everyone. That way, we’ve got perfect equality, and the children can get the support they need. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2014, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/115 "2014-06-12T12:25:41Z")
If a non-divorced custodial parent can choose to downgrade a child’s life style, either involuntarily (job loss) or voluntarily (teach him how to live with less), should a divorced, non-custodial parent have the same choice? ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2014, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/116 "2014-06-12T12:31:43Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > If a non-divorced custodial parent can choose to downgrade a child’s life style, either involuntarily (job loss) or voluntarily (teach him how to live with less), should a divorced, non-custodial parent have the same choice? That choice is rarely made unilaterally in a married couple, so the non-custodial parent shouldn’t have more power, when divorced, to make such decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2014, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/117 "2014-06-12T12:48:26Z")
Whether it’s rare or not is disputable. Non-divorced parents are frequently shitty parents and except in the extreme cases (abuse, neglect,etc.) there’s nothing in the law to stop them. As for “power” it seems to me that it’s the same whether they’re divorced or not. One parent can’t force the other not to quit a high-paying job or even quit working altogether. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2014, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/118 "2014-06-12T13:13:23Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > Allow me to offer a modest counterproposal, then. We institute a general tax, and all custodians of children get a flat $1100, paid by everyone. That way, we’ve got perfect equality, and the children can get the support they need. Wait, why should society in effect pay to subsidise some rich person’s kids? That sounds nuts. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2014, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/119 "2014-06-12T13:15:32Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Whether it’s rare or not is disputable. Non-divorced parents are frequently shitty parents and except in the extreme cases (abuse, neglect,etc.) there’s nothing in the law to stop them. > > As for “power” it seems to me that it’s the same whether they’re divorced or not. One parent can’t force the other not to quit a high-paying job or even quit working altogether. The difference, as has been explained upthread, is that non-divorced parents have not come to court admitting that they cannot work out their differences and asking the court to do that for them. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2014, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478/120 "2014-06-12T13:25:18Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Whether it’s rare or not is disputable. Non-divorced parents are frequently shitty parents and except in the extreme cases (abuse, neglect,etc.) there’s nothing in the law to stop them. > > As for “power” it seems to me that it’s the same whether they’re divorced or not. One parent can’t force the other not to quit a high-paying job or even quit working altogether. True, and we’ve all heard stories about the guy who quit his high-paying job and only accepts cash under the table for odd jobs, just to keep his ex-wife and kids from getting any of his money. I’m sure there are a couple of people like that in real life. So what? If a parent really does have a reduction in income, they can get a judge to lower the amount of child support they owe. This is a real thing, and people who complain they can’t convince a judge to lower their child support payments often leave out critical parts of the story when they’re complaining. If you can convince the custodial parent to accept a reduction in child support informally, because you both decide that the brats don’t need that much money, then good for you. The problem is that it takes both parents to agree, if they don’t agree then a third party–a judge–has to get involved. Don’t want the judge to get involved, don’t marry a gold-digging bitch and have 10 kids with her. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-support-amounts-are-grossly-unfair/690478.md?page=7)