Meh. If the money actually goes towards “He’s going to have a great life - all the best schools, live in a mansion, the works” I am not fussed. Isn’t that what parents, including fathers, want for their kids? I know I do. So what if it is “paid for by you”? It would be anyway.
A more valid concern, IMO, is if the custodial parent is using the payments to feather his or her own nest, and not on the kid at all.
Another legit beef is that custody and access laws are rigged against dads - which I suspect goes by jurisdiction.
The cries of woe about rich dads having to pay for their kids, in contrast, leaves me unmoved.
I pay child support and it is based on my income. I’d be as happy as the proverbial pig if there was assurance that the money was actually spent supporting the child, or put aside for her future, rather than treated as tax-free discretionary income. Due to the nature of my employment, I have custody of my child 3 months of the year. The Commonwealth still requires me to pay support those 3 months. My expenses do not skyrocket when she is with me and I am an indulgent parent. The Commonwealth has basically mandated that I hand my ex the cash every month to drive a much nicer car than she can afford on her own.
Child support? I wish.
But that’s a fact of life. People lose jobs, money gets wasted, gambled away, or lost, and the child has to adjust. It would be nice if the kid doesn’t have to have that disruption, but I see little other circumstances in which children are mandated to have a standard of life they are used to and not according to reality.
Would you be comfortable if courts use the same argument to deny divorce? Would you be comfortable if courts mandate that a parent can’t change their job (to one of equal pay) by saying the child is used to that parent’s job? What if courts ordered that parents can’t move because the child is used to living in a certain place? What if courts said parents can’t adopt or have another kid, or a pet, because the child might object? Where’s the line? Why only money?
Here’s an interesting scenario that I just thought of. Suppose the parents have a court-ordered obligation to support the child. What if that child needs a kidney and one of the parents is compatible? Should the court order the kidney removed and transplanted? I mean, what’s the line here if “parental obligation” can be used to forcibly take one parent’s money and given to the other one?
It sounds like you’re now saying that there doesn’t have to be a minimum standard, that if a poor kid was raised poor, then he should be ok with a divorced parent paying only a couple hundred dollars a month?
Of course its not always possible, but that’s an outlier I think and not the standard. Are you saying that because someone can’t sell their huge house with a big mortgage, that the richer, divorced parent is obligated to keep the other parent with custody in that lifestyle? Can the parent with the big house refuse to sell the house and refuse to move to keep the payments high?
I’m not sure what you want me to cite. My argument is that if we use the numbers from the USDA and break it down by month, a child would cost $XXX and that amount is basically added to the bank account of the other parent, minus the expenses. That’s a concept that’s not in dispute. If you mean that the expenses cost more, then you’re in disagreement with the USDA numbers because I’m assuming they take into account the average cost of raising a kid
I agree, it is hard, and probably unfair to everyone. But I don’t agree that court mandated egregious payments are the best way to mitigate the unfairness, nor that such judgements are free of unfairness in its own right. To me, it seems like we’re doing something more unfair in order to try to correct the fact that the parents are getting divorced. Yeah it sucks, but life sucks and 2 married people are going to divorce. The kid needs to accept that and the courts needs to accept that its better to have parents able to freely divorce then some court ordered punishment, outrageously disproportional to the “crime”, to fix it
How far do you extend that obligation? I think forced payments of an astronomical amount is too much. I don’t have a problem with some payments, tied to the economic index of how much it costs to raise a child
I don’t disagree with you mostly. But I do think that you seem to think such payments can’t be profit centers. $16000 a month is profiting. I would have issues with anyone who thinks that it costs that much to raise Halle Berry’s kid.
Its true, but lets not put it on just women. Gabriel Aubry seems to be profiting from this, and its money he doesn’t need since he’s worth $4.5 million. And he got to fuck Halle Berry. He should be paying her!
Here’s why I think you should be moved by that: loss of the rights of the non-custodial parent
If the parents are together, the parent is free to send his kid to whatever school he wants, even a free public school if he’s rich. Once the divorce happens, however, the non-custodial parent somehow loses that right. He cannot simply say “I refuse to pay for it” while if he was still a parent, he could have, and the wife (supposing they don’t have joint accounts and can’t pay for it herself) cannot do anything about it. But if she is no longer with him, suddenly he has to raise the kid however she decides just because she has custody? That doesn’t seem right to me, it certainly doesn’t increase the rights for anyone
Why are joint marriage decisions over childrearing solely the exclusive territory of the custodial parent? If anything, courts should STILL mandate that decisions are shared. But they are punishing the parent without custody disproportionately
Well, when a marriage breaks down, if the parents are capable of agreeing on stuff like child-rearing they should get joint custody as the default. In some jurisdictions that’s the case. Can’t speak to America, as I don’t live there.
If they are incapable of agreeing on child-rearing, presumably because their relations are too acrimonious, then the court has to decide who gets to make those decisions.
The alternative is really messy - allowing the non-custodial parent to, in effect, exercise control over the decision-making by threatening to withhold money just sounds like open season, given that we have established that sole custody is usually best where the parent’s relationship is now so bad that they cannot usefully agree on these matters.
That is a good argument for why parents who wish to have an active say in their kids’ life should…be custodial parents! It’s not 1975 or even 1995 any more. In most states, joint custody is the default, and nobody blinks an eye at fathers having sole custody (I know a few myself.) Unless you are genuinely unfit to parent, there is no reason why having at least partial custody is not achievable.
But the people we hear complaining aren’t the ones who are fighting-- or even making a half-asses request-- for custody. These arguments are largely the realm of people who are pissed off that they can’t entirely abandon their kids when they get sick of parenthood or would like to start a fresh family with none of those pesky kids from the past marriage to drag down their lifestyle.
I’m not questioning part of it. I’m questioning the entire premise. “The joke is on the rich guy.” What does that mean? Does that mean he’s genuinely a better candidate to be the custodial parent and wants to be, and he is prevented by force of law?
I’ve seen plenty of custody cases. Can you give me any reason to believe this occurs despite the fact that I’ve never seen it?
I mostly agree, but in fairness where the parents genuinely hate each other (presumably for reasons having nothing to do with the kids) and cannot cooperate, joint custody may be unsuitable or unworkable even if both would make excellent parents and want custody. In that scenario, inevitably, one has to end up with custody.
Sounds like one side wants to use the kid to squeeze as much money as possible out of the ex and the other side wants to use the kid to thwart the ex as much as possible. "Sorry about the second-hand shoes and stale bread, honey, but it’s either that or let your greedy-ass Mommy/Daddy get her/his hands on MY money, and hell if I’m letting that happen!"
What you sneeringly describe as “high-minded talk” about parents having a duty to agree upon the right way to raise their child is actually absolutely true.
I’m sorry for any parents in a bitter divorce who fail to come to an agreement on support issues because one or both of them are being selfish or greedy or vengeful or all of the above. But I’m not sorry that when such sad cases do occur, the courts are tasked with deciding what would be in the best interests of the child on a case-by-case basis.
Yes, of course. But I don’t see why a child should be expected to “adjust” to a lower material standard of living when the material resources are still enough to support the former standard of living, just because a greedy sleazeball and/or a vindictive twat who used to be married to each other now care more about making each other unhappy than about doing what’s best for their child.
I’m saying that whatever the parents mutually decide about how to raise their child should be respected (if it’s sensible and loving and doesn’t involve neglect or abuse).
If the parents can’t manage to reach a mutually acceptable decision, then it’s up to the referee, in the form of the court system.
You said the joke was on the rich guy, right? And you meant that he was going to pay for the kid to have the finest things in life, but wasn’t going to have custody, right? That’s the joke.
I do not believe that should be the only alternative considered. I think that my idea of a base child support cost is a good alternative that preserves that autonomy of both parents and guarantees a minimally decent life for the kid while not overly punishing one parent simply because they happen to be richer
3 things:
One, don’t you think a divorced parent should be able to start fresh? If someone pays the basic amount, for instance, shouldn’t they have the right to ignore his previous family because he chooses to?
Two, I’m not arguing for abandoning parenthood, I’m talking about proving a fair and proportional amount to make up for not being there.
Three, and I’m genuinely asking because I don’t know the law on this, do joint custodial parents not have to pay anything to the other? I’m not asking if both parents can agree to not pay the other in a one-sided custodial case, I’m asking if “joint custody” is a special status that, once achieved, presumes that neither parent pay the other for child support
Because to me, if its legal for the parent to force that lifestyle on the kid while they’re married, it should be legal to do it when they are divorced. Other than basic necessities, the child should not be expected to be held to any standard that the parents are capable of providing. Millionaires should be able to, while they are married, force their kids to take the bus, wear used clothes from Goodwill, and share a room with their sibling. That right should not disappear once they are divorced
I think that’s a little bit misleading. Consider this: would a judge ever say “Well your kid’s used to being poor, and even though the mom won the lottery, he should still live as he were poor”? The ref always rules for more money to be given to the kid! That’s not a court system that rules fairly, that is a court system that takes the existence of the child as an excuse to allow him to live as wealthy a lifestyle as can be afforded whether or not he is used to it.
And it certainly is, as long as both divorced parents agree to it.
If both divorced parents want to raise their kids that way, they certainly can.
The issue here is not whether a frugal parent happens to be divorced, but whether the frugal parent’s ex-spouse agrees with them about the proper lifestyle for the kid.
If divorced parents can reach that agreement, well and good. If not, it’s a third-party decision. You keep insisting that it ought to default to a unilateral decision on the part of one parent, but you’re not making convincing arguments for that.
What does “whether or not he is used to it” have to do with “fairness”? We already agreed that parents have to right to mutually decide pretty much any lifestyle they want for their kid, whether the kid is accustomed to a different lifestyle or not. But if parents can’t reach a mutually acceptable decision, it’s going to go to the courts.
And yes, the courts are likely to err on the side of abundance, requiring the child to be given more material benefits rather than fewer. I don’t have a problem with that: when judges are making decisions about the living conditions of kids they don’t know because the kids’ own parents can’t manage to work together like grownups to reach an agreement, I’d rather run the risk of the kids having a bit too much comfort than a bit too little.
I don’t know why you’re bringing up second hand shoes and stale bread, when the discussion is about basic SOL versus $16,000 per month and the like. But never mind.
The real point is that there’s a fundamental difference between a married couple and a divorced one WRT “mutual agreement”. When a couple is married, it’s the money of both of them at stake. They both have the same pros and cons of spending more or less money on the kid. Wanting the kid to have good things in life on the one hand versus family finances on the other. When they get divorced, the equation stays largely the same for the non-custodial parent. It’s still their kid and still their money. But for the non-custodial parent, the equation is fundamentally changed. It’s still their kid but now it’s someone else’s money (and the money of someone they are probably not particularly fond of to boot). Which is besides for the fact that the custodial spouse can live off the child support to an extent as well.
So sneering about the high-minded talk about “mutual agreement” is completely appropriate.
I’ll cop to this, but I don’t see the connection to your prior post.
Put it this way: in the situation described by Malthus (to which my first comment was directed), do you think the situation is more likely to play out the way he described or the way I described?
While the non-custodial spouse no longer has to change diapers or pick up toys or any other of the daily tasks of childrearing. So there are benefits on both sides, ISTM.
Of course, if the non-custodial spouse wasn’t doing any childrearing tasks during the marriage, I can see how they might not appreciate the fact that the custodial spouse is still doing all of them.
What does this have to do with anything we’re discussing? We’re talking about whether “mutual agreement” makes any sense in the context of a divorce situation. Whether there are benefits is another matter.
But while you’re at it, do you think the court should dictate how the custodial parent should “change diapers or pick up toys or any other of the daily tasks of childrearing” if the parents are unable to come to “mutual agreement” about these? Or do you appreciate in this particular case that the one doing the work should have more say?
I’m not sure I want to touch this with a ten foot pole. No child support scheme is ever going to make anyone happy. The most standard current practice is to draw up tables of what is spent on children at different income levels. Then you add the parent’s incomes together, check the table to see what would theoretically be spent on the kid(s), and apportion the responsibility for it fractionally. That is, if Parent A’s income is 1/3 of the combined income, then they have responsibility for 1/3 of amount in the table.
The tables usually do not include the truly wealthy because they’re going to say that their situation is not standard and they’re going to say it with lawyers. So the tables only to up to fairly well off. You could say that there is a maximum standard amount, but there are people willing to spend big bucks arguing that they deserve more. Are you suggesting that a law be passed to make paying a lawyer to try to get more money for your child illeagal? I don’t see that succeeding.
And it has pretty much nothing to do with the vast majority of divorced people, anyway. The vast majority of people get to use the table. I’d guess that includes the vast majority of the people commenting in this thread, so I’m not entirely sure why there’s so much emotion being spent on how unfair it is to force a rich person to, in some cases, spend as much on their offspring as they do on shoes.
Theoretically, if your income goes down, you eventually get to pay a smaller ratio of a lower amount on the table. Yes, I know it’s expensive, problematic, and a pain in the ass, but if it was easy to shift, people would use it to dick over their exes more often. There’s also the problem of working under the table and being “willfully underemployed.”
Not only are outsiders not taken into the obligation equations, but the incomes of new spouses are also considered not pertinent, even if they are very, very big. Some people feel that is unfair. Others, who have remarried and now have more children, think it’s unfair that the additional cost of those children is also not considered pertinent.
The support is not guaranteed. The obligation is guaranteed. In some cases, that just means that you have the theoretical opportunity to go after it. There are more custodial parents getting nothing than there are wealthy parents making bank. Getting the payments can be as expensive and problematic as getting an obligation lowered. That number has dropped since courts made payroll deductions mandatory, but it’s still a larger number.
TL,DR: It’s child support - no one is ever going to be happy. Also I don’t know why regular folks are getting het up over the possibility that a rich person might be inconvenienced.
