In Canada, at least, the child support payments are meant to keep the child living in the same level of income regardless of which parent they are staying with, not “the same level they had before the divorce” which people seem to be implying here. The idea being that the child doesn’t end up liking staying with Daddy more, because he can afford more stuff. If the paying parent has a change in income they, in theory, should be able to lower their payment.
Yogsooth, You’re using the word “fair” as though it’s objective, and you come up with a definition you like.
It’s not that simple.
We, as a society, have to define what “fair” means. It’s not written in stone or in the fabric of the universe. In a lot of cases, it’s pretty clear, when comparing apples to apples.
You define “fair” child support as some minimum amount required to take care of a child’s basic fundamental needs, regardless of how much the other party is able to pay. Someone else might define “fair” as what that parent would have paid over the child’s lifetime had there not been a divorce. Which is right?
Either, neither, both, or something else. We have to figure it out. It’s not a “fact”. It’s a value judgment. What do you value? Insight into that will appear in your answer to the original question, and it appears to be “the least damage to the wealthiest party.”
Gee, that makes sense!
See? it’s based on a value judgment: we value the idea that the children won’t be adversely affected by a big disparity between parents’ income. Note that this is only used when making the judgment; it’s not a “right” we enforce at every possible point in the child’s lifetime. So, if one parent gets a raise, it might not be grounds for a reassessment.
But at the time of the settlement, we have to pick a number, and this factor is one of many that come into play. Because, values. Not just some formula so everyone is treated equally, holding this idea of “equality” above all others.
I would say its not so vague, and that the examples I’ve given point to a measure of what’s “fair”, or in more precise terms, what range of economic lifestyle should be expected by the child. Like I’ve said before, within a marriage, whoever controls the pursestrings has the ability to dictate for the child and for the other spouse (if its not shared) the level of economic wealth they live in. In most families, its a cooperative agreement, but I think we all know that there exist marriages where one parent makes the money and decides how the family lives. That is a fact.
Therefore, when talking about a divorce and how much the child is deserved to maintain a lifestyle, if the debate suddenly brings in some nebulous claim of the right of the child to life in grand luxury when he did not have that right when the parents were married regardless of their income level, then I regard that reasoning as bad and the logic as made up.
In this case, fair would be defined as the parents having all of the rights they had before the divorce. What’s changed is the marriage, but no one’s been able to give a convincing argument that marriage status should confer more rights on the child. So if one side makes up a reason why a child suddenly deserves $16000 per month when they didn’t deserve it before, using reasoning that would be silly in a marriage but somehow accepted in a divorce, well, I have to call that odd at best and disingenuous at worst.
So instead of fair, let’s say instead that each parent gets all the same rights they had before the divorce, and the only thing changes is that they are divorced. Why should the rights of the child factor in at all? Children are not married, they are certainly not married to their parents. They are a 3rd party in a divorce. They should not be considered as part of the payment from one party to the other
Because the child shouldn’t be punished or have to suffer just because Mom and Dad decided to get a divorce.
They’re not. They’re considered an ongoing responsibility.
Nice that you take pity on very wealthy parents over their children, YogSosoth, but my sympathies lay elsewhere.
I take a different perspective, much more in line with trying to maintain stability in the childrens’ lives, including (where funds permit) maintaining their standard of living regardless of which parent they live with, so that regardless of which parent they live with they receive the educational, social and economic benefits to which they are accustomed and which they would have continued to receive but for the separation of the parents.
CarnalK got it in one:
Why not? If parents can punish the child within a marriage, why not outside of one?
Which, to me, is satisfied by $1100 per month. If you think there should be a different amount, give me the number, but don’t say that number changes based on the wealth of the parent
Its not pity but an issue of rights. Parents should have the right to treat their children however they want (barring abuse), which they do when they are married but not when they are divorced. It seems like there’s no logic other than some vagaries about the well-being of the child to justify that decrease in rights. I see that reasoning as unsupported since the rights this child has to be entitled to a standard of living doesn’t exist in a marriage and is completely made up
Why should separation of the parents entitle the kid to possibly a higher standard of living than he would have when the parents were married? Again, if the rich mother in a marriage decided that the kid needs to live frugally, she can make him do that if she controls the funds in the relationship. Where’s the logic that the kid, once the parents divorce, must be entitled to a substantially higher cost of living if the mother does not have custody and can afford it?
Again, using Halle Berry as the example, what if she makes her kid live like a normal, non-milliionaire kid? What’s the logic that once she divorces, the kid is entitled to $16000 per month if she didn’t have it already?
I get that it would be bad if kids favor one parent over the other, but let’s not assume that its all about just money. How much say do kids have to pick which parent they stay with anyways? As for liking one over the other, its not desirable but it seems like a intrusive and specific protection that someone claimed the kid deserves. So what if the kid likes one better? We can’t force the non-custodial parent to spend quality time with the kid, or not be a jerk. Why should we force equal living conditions to the detriment of the right of the parents to live how they want?
I gave a number. Half of reasonable expenses, plus the going rate for 12 hours a day by a nanny.
Which post was that? I guess I missed it
Where I am, it is the child’s right to child support, not the parent’s. Although child support is paid to a parent, it is for the benefit for the child and in law is the child’s right.
It does not work that way. Two households on the same incomes that previously maintained only one household results in lower standards of living for everyone. You seem to be ignoring the norm for a truly remote possibility. Just how many people with a net worth of 70 million or more raise their children (including proportionate share of housing, transportation, education, etc.) on a little more than a grand per month? [crickets]
The older the child, the greater their say. Where I am, a general rule of thumb is no weight for tots’ wishes, consideration for youngsters’ wishes, significant weight to a 12 year old’s wishes, do what a 14 year old wants unless something is very wrong about the kid’s parenting choice, and do not make an order against what a 16 year old wants. And yes, often kids play one parent off against the other, and often parents bribe their children.
Right. Because grounding a kid for two weeks for getting an F in math is exactly the same as being a neglectful parent simply because you don’t feel like living with your spouse anymore. :rolleyes:
There’s a huge difference between disciplining children for misbehavior and making them suffer for something that’s not their fault. Also, most parents don’t punish their children by neglecting and/or abandoning them. So yes, the child’s rights absolutely have to factor in during a divorce.
Kids aren’t toys you can just put on the shelf when you get bored with them.
The number changes based on the wealth of the parent. There’s no way around it.
And again, the rich mother cannot make that decision unilaterally and make it stick, because the other parent always has the option of seeking the court’s intervention. (That will likely result in a decree of separate maintenance, since if the two parents can’t work it out by themselves, the state would rather they separate, but the option always exists.)
If BOTH parents in a marriage agree, or if BOTH parents not married agree, the state will abide by their decision unless it is obviously harmful (abuse, etc.). If the two parents can’t agree, the courts get to make the decision, regardless of the presence or absence of a marriage license. I’m not sure how much plainer I can state that, or why you don’t seem to recognize that.
Update:
Its being reported that Halle Berry has filed court papers to reduce the $16000 child support payments to her ex to $3000 a month. I guess even Halle Berry, who can definitely afford $16000 a month, is finally seeing how crazy it is to be giving that to someone who she shares joint custody with and doesn’t have a job.
According to the article, she accuses her ex of not working and living comfortably off that amount. Because of course he would. That’s like 5 times more than I make a month, and if I could get my salary without doing anything, you can bet I can afford a babysitter a few hours of the day to watch my kid and go to work if I need it.
In the original argument from months ago, some people were fine with the payment because it was voluntary from Berry’s point of view. Do you guys still feel that way now that she wants to pay him only $3000? More to the point, should it be whatever the person can afford, or a more reasonable cost like I proposed that is a flat fee for number of children after taking living expenses into account?
I still think its no punishment to only mandate a minimum of money for each child and no more. No kid, unless they have severe medical issues, needs $16000 a month to survive, and even then I would hope that the money is paid to the hospital rather than the other parent. $16000 is too much, it doesn’t matter if you’re Bill Gates, all every human really deserves is food, shelter, and clothes. That should never cost $16000 a month
The child still came from that parent, that parent is the parent of the child - divorce does not change this, adoption would. Other then the child being adopted the obligation remains.
There are certain expectations that a child enjoys the status of living of the parent afforded to children by parents. It is a abhorrent thought that a child would live in depravity while their parents lived a very high class life. I would also say it crosses over into neglect of a child, a crime I believe.
In what possible way is $3000 a month “living in depravity”?
By depriving the child of a birthright of equal and expected status to the parent - as is a socially norm. It is abandonment.
I feel that if the parent is unwilling or deemed unable to take custody of the child, the child support should be a percentage of income.
If the parent is willing and able to care for the child but does not have custody the child support payments should be based on cost of living for the area the child resides in and not tied to the non - custodial parents income
I think it’s unreasonable to force one parent to pay more than a living wage to the other parent by claiming it’s for the child.
Unless you can show me that the $16,000 was being spent for the betterment of the child and not the betterment of the other parent, then no.