Please quantify what you mean by “almost no such thing”. Approximately what percentage of divorced parents do you think arrive at their custody and child support arrangements by mutual agreement, rather than needing litigation to determine them?
Not true. My husband divorced when his son was three. He and his former wife worked out custody (joint legal custody with she being the primary physical residence), visitation schedules (which changed over time based on what’s going on in their lives), college payment responsibilities, they both accepted the formula-calculated child support, and mechanism for agreeing upon religion, schools, medical stuff etc.
They wrote it up, the mediator reviewed it and turned it into legalese and the judge signed-off on it.
So, yes, they required legal interference in that it had to be approved by the judge, but taht was because they were seeking a divorce. I imagine if they had simply separated no one would have looked at anything. And yes, the judge should look it over to make sure the child and neither parent is being screwed, because divorcing couples sometimes try to take it out on each other through their kids.
I have a very good friend who is in this situation. She has full custody but her ex is allowed visitation. He punishes her year after year by denying the kids support. Man is extremely rich and she was almost destitute and he would refuse to pay for any court ordered support like health insurance. SHe was loathe to take him to court because of how vindictive he is and ended up paying for almost everything herself. She was entitled to more, but in the hopes of protecting her kids, forwent any legal remedies to her situation.
Not true. I have seen multiple sets of divorced parents work out their own arrangements and present it to the court as a fait accompli, and occasionally in the case of never-married parents I’ve seen them not bother to go to court at all (because that has costs for both sides, and not just monetary costs.) Sometimes the agreements they work out are for less money.
However, you’re looking only for cases where they both agree to significantly less solely because the kids need less, and I don’t know of very many people at all who want to low-ball the kid’s needs. (In fact, I’ve seen one or two arrangements where the parents agreed to rather more than the court would likely have ordered.) In the only case in which I am aware the custodial parent took a lot less, it wasn’t because they thought the kids needed less, but because they agreed that the noncustodial parent’s financial situation didn’t permit big cash payments then, and part of the agreement was that if that situation improved, so would the payments (as eventually happened).
No, I’m not saying it’s justified. I’m saying the number of sets of parents who genuinely believe the kids don’t need so much money is so vanishingly small that as a practical matter you’re not going to see a lot of cases. You’ll see mutual agreements for less money because of other tradeoffs (e.g., the parent that gets the house in the divorce gets less support money), but cases like that aren’t what you are seeking.
The cases I have seen where one parent really wants to low-ball the support are IMHO not genuine instances of believing the kids need less. The parent on the hook doesn’t intend to live a simple life him/herself; they’re not giving up the fancy car or the fashionable clothes. Money is just a weapon to be used against the other parent. In those sorts of cases, mutual agreement isn’t possible anyway, and the court has to make a decision.
Generally in cases like this, the mother at some point applies for social assistance, and the social assistance agencies then go after the father.
Why did you leave off the second sentence? What I wrote was:
I’m not saying a very low percentage settle out of court. I’m saying that those who do will settle at close to the guidelines, because people are not going to leave significant money on the table.
And the same goes for:
Emphasis added.
Not fighting over something that’s written into the law anyway is not the same thing as mutual agreement or “without legal interference”.
[I remember this one time a guy demanded that I give him the content of my pockets, claiming he had a gun. At that point we both came to a mutual agreement that I would give it to him.]
Again, what we’re discussing is that married parents have discretion to set the level of child-care spending at lower levels and divorced non-custodial parents don’t. Some people have responded “well, the divorced parents have the option of coming to mutual agreement at a lower level just like married parents do”, and I’m noting that there’s a different dynamic in play, when the custodial parent is considering spending on the child versus her ex’s money, as compared to when it’s spending on the child versus her own (shared) money.
That’s the same thing as saying it’s justified, AFAICT.
Let me ask you this: do you see lots of married couples deciding to spend significantly less on the kids then they could afford given their income/assets, or significantly less than would be ordered by the court were they to divorce?
For that matter, do you see lots of non-custodial parents who want to spend less on the child solely because they believe the kid is living an overly materialistic lifestyle or whatever? Do those same non-custodial parents themselves live the lifestyle they want the kids to live?
“Interference” implies that the legal system got in the way of what they wanted. Rather than trying to figure it out themselves, they used the formula, looked at it and said “yup, that’s fair” wrote into their document and moved on. It wasn’t interference; it was help.
I can tell you that years later, when we were making more money, she never went to court to have his child support increased. She knew that she could call up and say “lets send son to camp this summer or can we split the cost of a new laptop” he’d happily agree. So in that case, she absolutely didn’t go after the more she was legally entitled.
Don’t forget that the blade cuts both ways. Divorced couples also have the legal protection to say no to something they could have to pay if married. If childcare is set at $X/mo and mom wants to send the child to a fancy place that is $5X/mo, dad is not obligated to say yes. She gets a fixed amount to use as needed and she feels she needs more she has to petition the court. When married, dad might feel pressured to do it, might have to get a second job etc.
Pish. By that logic, you could say that no married couple who settles a vehement argument without resorting to violence or calling the cops is doing so “without legal interference”. Because if they had called the cops, they would have been prevented from resorting to violence because the prohibition of violence is “written into the law anyway”! :rolleyes:
No, voluntarily resolving a dispute is not the same as having a resolution imposed on you by “legal interference”. Not even if the resolution you arrived at is similar to the one that would have been imposed on you if you had sought legal interference.
“Generally,” based on what?
Any of this, based on what?
Absolutely. Very many such people.
If fact, just the other day my wife was remarking about someone she knows whose father is a billionaire and who looks pretty much like any other middle class person you see walking around.
No and yes.
IOW, I don’t know of anyone who wants to spend less solely because they believe the kid is living an overly materialistic lifestyle.
But I know a lot of married people who would want to spend more on their kids in an ideal world but think that based on the income and assets that the family has they can only afford a level somewhat less than that. That’s life. And I know of non-custodial parents who would make that same judgment but have it taken out of their hands by the courts or the threat of the courts. (That’s generally the argument that non-custodial parents are making in divorce proceedings - “I’d like to give my kids more but I can’t afford it.”)
If they both happened to agree with the formula, then the issue is moot.
I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that ex-wives are less effective at pressuring their ex-husbands than current wives are at pressuring their current husbands? (Even if so, it’s not an example of “the blade” cutting both ways.)
That depends on what they would have done absent the law. In your example, if they would have resorted to violence absent the law, then the statement would be correct.
Deciding that you’re not going to fight over something that the law is going to tie your hands on anyway is not resolving the issue without legal interference.
Well I assume you’re aware that the social assistance agencies are legally required to go after any fathers who are not providing financial assistance. (If you’re not aware of it, let me know.)
So the question then is what percentage of women with children who have no income apply for social assistance at some point. Do you claim it’s untrue that they “generally” do so?
Women with children who have no income at the time of divorce, you mean, because they were exclusively caretakers at the time of separation? Yes, I do claim that.
More importantly, though, that’s a dodge. It doesn’t matter whether they do that or not. What she could do is file for and and receive a nice fat support order. Instead, and to her detriment financially, she has chosen to accept what she can peaceably get from the father of the children in order to accomplish something else.
Which you, without any foundation, claimed 99% of custodial parents were incapable of doing because of “human nature.” Which is the particular unsupported and insupportable generalization I was responding to, not some notion that in the end, someone is going to come after the father, which appears to be the only lens you’re capable of viewing this through.
My understanding is that your concern is that people may be forced to pay more for a child’s upkeep when divorced than when married, due to legal formulae determining the amount of support.
My argument is that this same formula may actually prevent a divorced parent from paying more than they might have when married. Married parents often compromise (I’d like Jr to go to private school but my spouse does not, so we’ll only send him for high school etc, not K-12). The mandated child support amounts would prevent someone from having to compromise and pay more than they normally would have (If she wants Jr to go to private school she can figure it out on the budget she has).
The blade cutting both ways is that in some cases you may pay more, but in other cases you may be protected from having to compromise and pay more than you want to.
And yes, I am fairly certain that a married spouse has more sway over their spouse than they do over their ex-spouse. Married people, if they want to stay married, learn to compromise.
I was actually thinking of women such as the one in your example, who continue to have no income.
There are exceptions to everything. I didn’t say 100%.
[However, on thinking it over further, I do agree that my prior response was a dodge. My apologies.]
I’m sorry but I still don’t understand you. You’re saying that a married spouse has more sway than a divorced spouse. Let’s assume that’s true*. Then it would follow that the reason the divorced spouse doesn’t have to pay more is because their ex-spouse can’t influence them to do it. How is the ex-spouse being protected by the formulaic law? In the absence of the law, would they pay more? Why?
[*As an aside, I’ve never been divorced myself, and I would guess what you’re saying is probably true on balance, but it doesn’t seem nearly as simple as you present it. For one thing, if the other spouse also wants to stay married then they are also going to be constrained from pressuring their spouse too much, for fear of stressing their marriage, while an ex-spouse would not have the same constraints. A lot of ex-spouses have no compunctions about causing their exes all sorts of aggravation. Conversely, as others have noted in this thread, even ex-spouses are frequently motivated to keep some sort of working relationship with their exes, and if an ex feels strongly that you’re a heartless bastard if you deprive junior of such-and-such that she feels he deserves, I can see exes feeling the pressure.]
The woman in my example will have an income in the long run; the separation is a recent thing.
Is there any particular reason to believe she and the examples cited by IvoryTowerDenizen and slash2k are all one-percenters, rather than actually being as common as we seem to think they are?
[quote=“Fotheringay-Phipps, post:153, topic:690478”]
I’m sorry but I still don’t understand you. You’re saying that a married spouse has more sway than a divorced spouse. Let’s assume that’s true*. Then it would follow that the reason the divorced spouse doesn’t have to pay more is because their ex-spouse can’t influence them to do it. How is the ex-spouse being protected by the formulaic law? In the absence of the law, would they pay more? Why?
I’m sorry I can’t communicate it differently. Of course married couples have more sway over each other than ex-spouses do- a desire compromise out of love and respect tends lead to that.
The divorced parent being asked to pay for something extra (about their mandated child support) can simply say no and hang up the phone. No worries about having to figure out compromise, as a married couple might have to. The ex only does so if it suits them. The ex spouse may objections to a particular activity, and is not obligated to spend additional money to help pay for it, if they don’t want to.
I really don’t know how else to describe what I’m trying to say.
The only relevant case is yours.
ITD is talking about a case that was the same as the guidelines, and slash2k discussed on temporary deviation and agreed that generally there are not significant deviations from the guidelines.
I agree with what you’re saying about a divorced spouse being able to say no and hang up the phone. Where I’m having trouble is that even if there was no legal child support decree they would still be able to say no and hang up the phone. So I don’t see how they’re being protected by the set amount.
ISTM that you’re conflating two isses, those being 1) legal support agreement versus informal arrangement, and 2) marital relationship versus ex-spouse relationship.
I don’t think its meaningless in that you can have a good measurement of what the average costs are. If Berry’s kid is an extreme outlier, I’ll admit I was wrong, but the fact is that the things you listed should not be expected for a kid no matter the economic background. For rich people, wardrobes and nannies and hair appointments are a given, but maybe she should do without them
Thanks. Seeing these numbers just reinforces the idea that children do not need $16000 a month in general. Maybe Berry’s kid does because of some special circumstances, but I don’t know what those are. To me, its much more likely that the payments are based on her net worth, which is a wrong way to calculate it in my belief
Thanks, good to know. Does that mean though that if you fight for and get sole legal custody, you can, if you choose, send the kid to a private school and buy the kid stuff and then claim a higher support payment than you would be entitled to if you decide to send the kid to a public school?
Ideally yes, but surely you acknowledge there are marriages where there are disagreements, sometimes severe, that doesn’t always result in divorce? If people were reasonable, we wouldn’t be talking about this topic. But the fact is that people are not always reasonable, and even within a marriage, one side may be treating the children differently than what the other side is. When, not if, that happens, I see the courts staying out of it just as I expect them to do when the couple is no longer a couple. To put it another way, one partner doesn’t get to decide something for the child and force the other one to pay for it when they’re not married. I feel that the parent with custody is STILL required to raise the child within their means
Its a punishment when its court-enforced and non-consensual
In answer to your question, I pose another: If that happened in a marriage, the course cannot force either parent to pay up. Why should that change if they are divorced?
Here’s why: If the argument is that the child should have the right to the lifestyle he is accustomed to, and the custody parent can provide that, then it satisfies that right. Only if you believe that there is an additional legal requirement for a parent to be somehow involved, even indirectly through monthly checks in the mail, in a child’s life after divorce, can you justify forcing Berry to pay for the child.
I believe it DID happen but the reasoning was flawed. I believe that if the argument is that the child deserves to continue a lifestyle and one parent can provide that, then the other parent need not pay. However, I would amend that by removing the requirement for a child to maintain any lifestyle at all other than a basic one, dropping the court’s consideration of the parent’s income, and only requiring a minimal payment to the extent that I’ve described.
I bring it up because it seems that people want to force the non-custodial parent to have contact. I’ve said it above that I think after a divorce, the non-custodial parent has the right to completely ignore her previous family if she chooses to barring the condition that she pay a basic level of alimony to the custodial parent. Some people disagreed, saying that once a parent, always a parent. But in reality, there are people who will still ignore their kid, so it seems that the pragmatic solution these people have (the people who wants to force contact) is by a forced payment. Its the best they can get, basically, because they can’t force a mother to love her child and spend time with him
I haven’t quite worked out how I feel about adoption and orphanages, so I don’t have much of a definitive answer for you. I do think that like giving up newborns, parents should have a right to drop off kids of any age to a government agency. But I also think that past a certain age, the parents should have some responsibility for the kid. I don’t know. I do think that the laws should be consistent though, but I’m not married to that position
Well that’s an easy question. I don’t have a personal stake in the matter but I feel that current laws are unfair and should change. I posted it because it was an interesting topic for debate.
It doesn’t apply to the vast majority, that’s the point. Cococ’s link showed that average payments are about $430 a month. The only reason I’ve used Halle Berry as an example is because her payments are way over that. If she was paying $430 a month, I wouldn’t have made this topic
BlackKnight gets the reason why this topic exists. If I could respond for him, I would say its out of the question that a court must enforce a payment. Opportunity, to me, doesn’t factor into the equation at all
If that’s the case, I disagree with the application of that law. With a flat rate tied to basic necessities, alimony need not be part of the divorce arena. If its only because the divorce forces the topic of money into the child-rearing formula, then having the flat $1100 per month that I’ve proposed would take that out of the fight.
But that’s naive. Parents have disagreements all the time and the courts not only does not presume the child has a right to anything, it presumes that the parents get to make all of the decisions themselves, AND it doesn’t presume to tell one parent or another to maintain a level of wealth for the child. This should remain so after a divorce, where lifestyle preferences are not subject to the courts to decide. If the custodial parent doesn’t like it, they shouldn’t be able to unilaterally change the rules. In a disagreement ending up in a stalemate, neither side gets to act. If that results in benefits for one, then so be it
I would rather not speculate on the motives of a marriage. Staying in a marriage should not imply an acceptance of whatever lifestyle the family affords to keep. Doing that and it leads to the circumstances we see now, with judge deciding that kids deserve something.
In my state (and yours may vary), if one spouse/parent signs Junior up for an expensive preschool, the other spouse (assuming s/he is also Junior’s parent) is jointly liable for the entire bill whether or not the second spouse agreed with or even knew about the enrollment. One spouse can bind the other on decisions relating to the child’s schooling, medical care, and certain other basic needs.
In other words, just saying no and hanging up the phone won’t get you off the hook, absent a court order saying who is responsible for what.
I don’t know any billionaires’ kids, and it sounds like what you are talking about is an experience of the one percent, not the 99%.
Beyond that, “looks pretty much like any other middle class person” is not what I’m asking. Did that billionaire’s kid go to an ordinary public school, sell candy bars to be able to afford the band trip, take out student loans to go to college, shop at Goodwill, go on vacation only to places where Mom/Dad could drive, or in any other way actually live a typical middle-class lifestyle? (Even Warren Buffett’s kids, who were raised fairly middle-class, enjoyed some privileges.)
Do you know any middle class families who deliberately choose to raise their children lower-middle-class, working-class, or poor?
Nothing prevents a non-custodial parent from giving his children EXTRA monies. If on the other hand some non-custodial parents think they can only afford a level somewhat below what the court decides, then either their judgement or the court’s is incorrect. If they are certain of their situation, then that’s what appellate courts are for.
Beyond that, this argument doesn’t support your thesis at all. Saying “I can’t afford to give you X” is an entirely different proposition than saying “I could afford X, but I choose not to give it to you.”
No. Child support (at least in my state) is based on the incomes of the parents, not the lifestyles chosen. If a parent with sole custody chooses to send the kid to a private school, the support amount will not be increased unless they can show the private school is necessary (such as a special school for disabled children, offering services not available in the public schools).
Sure, but if they stay married, they’ve figured out some accommodation.
As I noted in my previous post, a married parent can make certain decisions and unilaterally bind the other parent to pay the bills, so why would you expect something different when they are no longer married?
Living up to your legal obligations is never punishment. If I ran up a huge chunk of bills and simply didn’t bother to pay them, would you regard it as “punishment” if the court found for my creditors and enforced payment?
The court can force the parent to maintain at least certain basic levels of support, AND the court can force the parent to pay the bill for certain decisions made by the other parent, in both cases even within the marriage.
In the first place, it appears Berry’s agreement was a mutual agreement approved by the judge, not a decision made by the judge. In the second place, have you considered the question I asked much earlier about parental alienation?
No, it’s that the mother still has legal obligations to take care of the child, whether or not she even has the right to see him. For example, a parent in prison, who has no form of custody and may be legally prohibited from contact with the child, still has to pay up. The kid has needs, and those needs don’t go away just because some “parent” doesn’t want further contact.
Is this true even for non-custodial parents (with no support decree)? That’s surprising.
Well, obviously, yeah. The most glaring examples are always going to be one-percenters. There’s much less flexibility at lower income levels, as you’ve noted earlier.
That said, the issue comes up WRT poorer people as well, as noted.
I assume they lived somewhat richer than average. (FWIW I myself actually knew a couple of this person’s brothers a while back - they seemed pretty normal too, but I didn’t know them all that well.)
But that’s not the question you asked. This person is quite a lot richer than Halle Berry and did not raise their children on a lifestyle that required anything close to $16K a month.
Not that I can think of. Certainly I can’t think of anyone who lived themselves on a middle class level and raised their kids on a lower level (which would be pretty jerkish, obviously).
I’m not sure what the relevance of this particular question is.
I’m not sure that’s true. I don’t know that it’s necessarily the court’s judgement, because frequently the awards are based on formulas in the law which may not be appropriate in many cases. And even if it’s not, appeals courts won’t work if the original judge made a finding of fact, e.g. he decides that the non-custodial parent is negligently underemployed.
It would be an entirely different proposition if the child support payments were higher than the net income of the parent. But if it’s not and the parent could survive by living under a bridge and eating dogfood etc. then it’s a matter of priorities.
The difference between “I can’t afford to give you X” and “I could afford to give you X if I made all the sacrifices and you none” are the same, for our purposes.