Yes. Those kinds of bills are legally presumed to be the joint responsibility of both parents unless there is a court order otherwise.
That’s what you are advocating a parent should have the right to do. “I have a comfortable middle class lifestyle, but I am going to choose to give you only the minimal level of support necessary to keep me from being arrested for neglect, because I don’t want to bother with you anymore. I have the right to choose what lifestyle you will live.”
Here, the guidelines are exactly that: a guideline or rebuttable presumption. If the non-custodial parent has good evidence that they are not negligently unemployed, the court is free to adjust the amount appropriately. The appellate courts won’t reweigh the evidence, but they will determine if the original judge’s finding of fact is sufficiently supported by the evidence.
Not for my purposes, and not for any of the courts with which I am familiar.
I don’t recall having advocated for that in this thread (you may be confusing me with YogSosoth). But I wouldn’t have a problem with that, if the laws were such. That doesn’t mean I would advocate actually doing it (in most cases) but I don’t see that the law needs to do mandate any more.
What’s not relevant is whether I know married people who actually do this to their childen.
Judges don’t have chrystal balls, and they can get it wrong. There will generally be a lot of ambiguity about this, and it will be hard to overturn such a verdict.
I’ve read some appellate court reviews of these types of decisions. The ones that get overturned are where the judge refused to consider certain factors or evidence. If he considered everything and made his best call, he’s very very unlikely to get overturned. Doesn’t mean he got it right, though.
ISTM that you’re losing track of the discussion here.
The original point was that there’s a difference between married and unmarried couples WRT their discretion in setting appropriate levels of spending for children. In response to this, you asked if I knew of non-custodial parents who wanted to spend less on their children solely so as to keep their lifestyle less materialistic. I answered that I didn’t but that the same issue would arise for a non-custodial parent who felt that the definition of what he “could afford” was at Point X versus Point Y. In the context of this exchange, the point is that this is something that a married couple could decide for themselves while a non-custodial parent would have dictated to them. (Which ties in to the earlier point, that the custodial parent is incented to feel the non-custodial parent “could afford” a far higher level of expenditures, which she might not feel if it was her own money at stake. For which reason you can’t compare a married couple to a divorced one for purposes of their ability to achieve “mutual consent”.)
In this context, there is no 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”. These are decisions that might be made by a married couple but which are removed from the discretion of a non-custodial parent. And the point again is that the custodial parent will always be motivated to see what the non-custodial parent “can afford” as being more than the one whose money is actually being spent.
And it does remain so after a divorce. UNLESS the divorcing parents are unable to work out a mutually acceptable agreement like grown-ups, and they call in the courts to adjudicate.
I can see why some selfish sleazeball noncustodial parents would want their financial obligations to their children to be reduced to a bare minimum, even if they themselves are quite well able to afford a more lavish lifestyle. I think that if the custodial parent is willing to accept such an arrangement (perhaps just in order to minimize contact with a selfish sleazeball, as in the case of IvoryTowerDenizen’s friend), the courts should not interfere with that mutually agreed-upon arrangement. And in fact, they don’t.
But I can’t see why anybody except selfish sleazeballs would want courts to officially endorse or mandate a policy of reducing noncustodial parents’ financial obligations to their children to a bare minimum, if they can well afford to pay more and the custodial parent is not willing to go along with the bare-minimum arrangement.
There is no sensible argument in favor of such a policy. There’s no reason for the court to assume that it should stay out of the parents’ business when at least one of the parents is officially requesting it to intervene in their business via litigation. And there’s no reason for the court to assume that the best interests of the child would default to a bare-minimum level of financial support.
The only interests such a policy would serve would be those of selfish sleazeballs who want to enjoy a much higher level of material prosperity for themselves than they’re willing to provide for their own children, even if that means disregarding the wishes of not only the children themselves but the children’s custodial parent who’s doing the work of rearing them.
Why the hell should family law consider its primary concern to be the desires of selfish sleazeballs rather than the well-being of children?
For me, the duties are simply to provide a base standard of living irrespective of parental income. I guess you hold parents to a higher standard. It might be the more moral choice, but I have issues with the government enforcing morality
The difference is that I weigh the rights of the parents vs. that of the child, and consider that parental obligation fulfilled if the child doesn’t want for basic levels of food, shelter, and clothing. If the parent wants to abandon the child emotionally and physically while still providing that $1100 check a month, I think that the courts should stay out of it.
Either we have different definitions on what is considered sufficient parental responsibility, or you want to enforce a financial responsibility in additional to the parental one
A disaster in what way?
If this is to me, then I’ll ask you to not speculate on my motives and stick to the issues presented. How I feel personally about women getting pregnant by men to get their money has little to do with the arguments
No it would not, and I think that’s why you don’t get my point. The argument for a minimal standard is what prevents hardship. Like I said, it would have a component to take into account the cost of living of the area, special medical bills, and things like that. The law would be designed specifically so that nobody has to rely on being intrinsically rich, but it would make sure that nobody gets rich in the process. I want the courts to decide for one parent to pay the other for the kid an amount that would not result in additional hardship for the custodial parent and not a penny more. I don’t see $16000 as a fair indicator of that
I think that if it was a true agreement, then it should need no court approval. To me, having a court-ordered stamp of approval coerces the paying parent to not violate the terms of settlement. True agreement cannot be reached unless the threat of punishment is non-existent. If Berry wanted to pay that amount per month, then she should do it without a judge approving it as its legal for her to pay her ex any amount she can afford.
Then you and I have nothing to debate because we’re not even coming from the same place
Sure we can, which is why I stipulated that costs of living and medical and other circumstances much be taken into account.
To me, using the figures of the cost of raising a child ensures that there will be no significant hardship. How can it, if that’s how much it costs to raise a child? Barring special circumstances, the minimal payment guarantees that the child is taken care of with a bare minimum of humanity, and that the custodial spouse doesn’t profit from the simple act of having a child with a richer spouse
It is astronomical compared to the average cost of raising a child, which should be the baseline of what we’re using to compare these payments, and NOT the wealth of the parent. To me, the wealth of the non-custodial parent is utterly pointless. All it matters is the question “How much does it cost to raise a child?” and that’s the standard by which we should determine the payments
The point is that we shouldn’t be using their wealth to determine how much it costs to raise a kid. I would be asking this “Can Halle Berry’s kid survive eating McDonalds and PB&J sandwiches? Can they survive with a trip to the doctor’s once every 6 months, maybe a dental appointment once a year? Can they buy their clothes off the rack at Target? Can they bike or walk to school? Can they live in a 2 room apartment?” If they can and there aren’t extraordinary circumstances, then the dad gets $1100 a month and no more.
Why should that be the only question that matters? Why should family law courts, when ASKED to intervene in family matters via litigation by one or both of the parents, not take into account other questions? Such as:
Is it in the best interests of a child to be kept on a shoestring budget against the wishes of their custodial parent if their noncustodial parent can easily afford a better standard of living for them?
Is it in the best interests of half-siblings to have very different standards of living, where the ex-spouse’s child sees the new spouse’s child treated much more generously by their wealthy common parent who could easily afford to treat them both equally generously?
Is it in the best interests of children to be given the message that their parents’ generosity towards them and concern for their comfort are dependent on the parents’ relationship with each other, and they needn’t expect to have “luxuries” like camp fees or college funds if Mommy and Daddy someday decide they don’t love each other any more?
Is it in the best interests of children to have their basic level of material comfort dependent on which parent they happen to be spending time with? Should children be presumed to be mature and wise enough to balance “love versus money” tradeoffs in their family lives without negative consequences?
I certainly can see how somebody might answer any or all of those questions differently from the way I would. What I can’t see is why you imagine that a family law court has no business even considering those questions.
I know judges get it wrong sometimes. They have to make their best call, and sometimes best isn’t good enough. However, SOMEBODY has to make the call, if the parents cannot agree.
In Kansas, when establishing or modifying child support, both parties are expected to fill out a Domestic Relations Affidavit, setting forth the income, assets, and expenses of the parties (how much is your rent? how much do you spend on car repairs? what are the payments on your credit cards? etc., etc., etc.). Like any other evidence, this can be challenged by the opposing party, and also forms the basis of the judge’s decisions on modifications.
A married couple gets to decide for themselves. Plural. Both of them. They either agree, agree to disagree, reach some other kind of accommodation, or split.
If an unmarried/no-longer-married couple can decide for themselves (plural, both of them), they are free to do so, and the judges are generally perfectly happy to sign off on whatever they agree.
The problem comes when the two can’t agree. Then somebody else has to use their discretion.
You are arguing that one parent should have the power to make unilateral decisions about the child, the child’s upbringing, the child’s lifestyle, etc. If they can make unilateral decisions, they can unilaterally decide to be a jerk. They can unilaterally decide “I have a comfortable middle class lifestyle, but I am going to choose to give you only the minimal level of support necessary to keep me from being arrested for neglect, because I don’t want to bother with you anymore. I have the right to choose what lifestyle you will live.” While you may not explicitly advocated for that, it’s the logical outcome of what you are saying. In a shared/joint custody situation, why should ONE parent have the power and authority to make unilateral decisions and enforce them? Within a marriage, one parent can’t make unilateral decisions and reasonably expect the marriage to continue undisturbed; why should they after the marriage is over?
The power to make unilateral decisions is normally given only when there is good reason (abuse situations, e.g.). You are advocating it should be the norm, and have never addressed why.
The courts generally do. I’ve never seen a court force kids on an unwilling parent, unless they have no other place to go.
If the two cannot agree on anything, then even small but necessary decisions don’t get made. “I’ll make an appointment with Dr. Smith.” “Don’t you dare take her there; it must be Dr. Jones.” “Dr. Smith!” “Dr. Jones!” “Dr. Smith!!” “I said DR JONES.” and the upshot it that the kid never goes to the doctor at all.
Or the kid becomes the rope in a game of tug-of-war, with one parent deliberately undermining the other. Or the kid gets to be present at endless screaming matches. Or both parties are bankrupted by endless legal bills as they keep running back to court. Or all of the above.
In most jurisdictions, there are legal presumptions made in the absence of a court-approved agreement, and those presumptions may not be what the parties want OR what they agreed to. Particularly in a case like theirs, where international travel/residence is part of the picture, they would not want to find themselves caught by varying legal presumptions made in various parts of the world.
Apparently we’re not. Divorce is defined as ending a marriage, not ending a parent/child relationship. There are ways to do that (adoption, termination of parental rights), but divorce isn’t it.
If Halle Berry and whatever-his-name-is make an agreement differently, then who are you to insert yourself into their parental relationship?
IANAL, family court or any other kind, but even I can see that such an arrangement would be dumber than rocks. What if Ms. Berry were to be incapacitated or killed, and her executors/caretakers were required, for a short or long while, to spend no more of her (or her estate’s) assets than she was legally obligated to pay? The money that she wanted to go to her child would be legally unavailable.
If you’ve got a financial obligation to someone, even if it’s an obligation you’re undertaking entirely voluntarily, there’s a lot to be said for getting old Uncle Lex Civilis to stamp and seal the agreement. To take another example, I have a good relationship with my employer and they are happy to voluntarily give me my paycheck in exchange for my service and vice versa, but that doesn’t mean we’re not both glad we’ve got a written agreement spelling out what our respective obligations are.
You do? Because me, I’m pretty happy with the government enforcing certain kinds of morality, like punishing people who harm or steal from others, or requiring honesty from manufacturers about what they put in their products, and so forth.
Now, I would certainly concur that the government has no business imposing its moral standards in certain other areas, such as the private behavior of consenting adults. This is why, for example, the law shouldn’t be telling mutually cooperative and functioning parents how they should rear their kids (short of avoiding actual abuse or neglect, that is).
But when divorced parents request the law to help them resolve disagreements about childrearing policies that they can’t or won’t resolve on their own, those two adults are no longer mutually consenting and this is no longer a matter of their private behavior.
I’m not speculating on the motives of a marriage, and I didn’t say anything about the lifestyle a family can afford to keep. If a family can afford only a rice and beans lifestyle, well, that’s what they can afford. That’s not what anyone is talking about here. We’re talking about a family living a rice and beans lifestyle *even though they can afford better. * And if my husband wants to live a rice and beans lifestyle even though we can afford better, I either go along with it ( which is a tacit agreement), we come to some sort of a compromise (maybe I drive a 10 year old car but the kids go to private school even though we can easily afford both a new car and private school) or I file for divorce. In no case can he unilaterally decide that we must all live his preferred lifestyle.
In your original post on this subject (#160) you seemed to be expressing more confidence.
My feeling is that you start with the presumption that it’s the money of the person who earned it. After that, you need a very strong reason to extract it from them.
You (& various others in this thread) seem to be starting with the presumption that money is sort of “family money” to begin with and the question is how to allocate it, such that there’s no reason to give more say to the guy who is actually earning it. I disagree.
I’m saying that - within reason - one parent should have the power to decide what to do with their own money.
This seems to be conflating two issues, those being 1) the ability to be a jerk and 2) unilateral power.
People have the ability to be jerks, and the law generally does not interfere unless there’s some real abuse involved. (I’m agreeing that anything less than basic sustinence would be real abuse.) But beyond that, there are not generally laws that prevent people from being jerks.
In this case, a couple can jointly decide to be jerks in the manner you describe and no one can stop them. There’s no fundamental difference - as regards to the freedom to be jerks - between a couple jointly deciding to do it and one person unilaterally deciding to do it. Plus, there are a lot of single parents out there, who can also unilaterally decide to be jerks.
[Personally I don’t think a non-custodial parent who wants to lower payments is necessarily a jerk.]
Well I addressed it now. It’s unilateral power over money that the person themselves earned and/or unilateral power of their own lifestyle and how hard they should work. Unilateral power over these issues is standard in other matters.
No, you don’t - because even you would require a “base standard of living” enforced legally. On what basis are you requiring that, if not “enforcing morality”?
Again, both of us are weighing rights. You just weigh them differently. To me, if it comes to a contest between a parent uncaring of their child, and the child, I would rather err on the side of the child.
The obvious way.
I have no idea if you have ever raised a child, but I have, and I think I speak for all parents when I say that raising a child requires continual decision-making on the part of the parent - how to discipline, what stuff to get the kid, schooling, activities, etc. etc.
These decision have to be made, and made all the time.
Parents who quarrel or fight over every frigging decision = these decisions do not get made, or do not get made in any timely way. So the kid suffers, goes undisciplined, activities and schooling compromised, etc. Not to mention having all the ‘fun’ of knowing one’s parents are fighting over them, all the time.
Kids need stability, firmness, continuity. Divorce is hard on this - taht can’t be helped - but continuing the battles for years after the divorce over the minutae of child-care makes normalicy difficult to achieve.
All deals relating to child support generally must be court-approved, and would have to be even under your preferred solution. Why? Because it is necessary for the court to satisfy itself that, at the least, the minimum requirements of care are met. They cannot be contracted out of. The parents cannot mutually decide to raise the child in a cardboard box and feed it on dog food.
Moreover, all contracts are based on the threat of legal coercion. If you break a contract, you will be sued.
The problem with your OP is that you are basing a premise (the courts have gone nuts over child support payments!!) on a case that is (a) involving very wealthy people, and (b) one that they have contracted the amount between them - it was not court-imposed.
I’ve always wondered what’s wrong with the idiot second (or third) wives of men like this.
When I was in college, I worked with several men who said (and I don’t think they were joking) that they planned to get married with the intention of doing exactly this - father a few kids, and then abandon them until they’re teenagers, when he can make the Big Hero Dad Comeback and presumably party with his kids. One of them said that after his own father left, his family had to live briefly in a homeless shelter. I asked him, “Why would you want to do that to your own kids?” and he replied, “Dad had a 17-year-old girlfriend.”
It’s also possible, in some cases, that their kids from their first marriage dislike them and make it clear that they want as little as possible to do with them, either because they blame them for breaking up the marriage (being the ones who “left”) or because the custodial parent encourages it, in blatant or subtle ways.
That’s not to say that a lot of men aren’t selfish jerks. But there are also a lot of people in the above situation, and I would not caterogize such men as jerks.
Most divorced women that I know want their kids to have a good relationship with their father and his family, but there are exceptions to that. Sometimes it’s justified, and sometimes it isn’t.
And when one parent is really dysfunctional, many times the other one is too. There’s a situation in my extended family where the parents went through a very ugly divorce and for several years afterwards, I honestly believe that the kids would have been better off in foster care. :eek: The kids, who are now adults, want nothing to do with their father or anyone in his family (they consider their stepfather their “real dad” and their biodad their “fake dad”) and nobody will tell me why, except that I should not be sorry. Considering that I know about some of the things she did (this included threatening to play the false sexual abuse charges game), I probably don’t want to know what happened.
I notice you use the male pronoun here. Should the mother also have the right to ignore her previous family if she chooses to? What if they both choose to? Does no one have an obligation to the children they create?
Most divorced women I know of want good relationships with their exes in theory and/or think they want it. But for a variety of reasons, it doesn’t always work out that way.
Partially it’s competition, in which the mothers want to make sure their connection is the stronger one. A lot of divorced women resent the fact that they have to take care of the kids day and day out while the ex shows up every so often and takes the kid for an outing, and the thought that the kid might associate the dad with fun and games while they (the mothers) are doing the tedious grunt work is galling. But beyond that is that while there are exceptions, the vast majority of divorces involve some sort of hard feelings, and it’s human nature (with apologies to those who dislike citing this concept) to reflect this, at least in subtle and possibly subconscious ways. Father can’t come to some event - do you make excuses like you would if you were still married, or do you hint that maybe he has other priorities? You can’t afford something. Is it a lesson in how you can’t have everything in life, or do you observe that you would love to get it if only dad would come up with the money? And so on. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the throne and if you are the custodial parent there are an abundance of opportunities to guide the kid’s vision of the situation along the lines that you prefer.
This is all true even if in theory you would like the children to have a good relationship with their father. Then there are the cases where the custodial parent has come to the conclusion, whether justified or not, that the father is such an evil monster that purely based on the best interests of the child it would be best to have as little contact with the guy as possible. [Although I should note that while this is probably successful more often than not, it can also fail in the long term, and I’ve even seen cases where it actually backfired - the kids grew up thinking their father was a monster but when they got old enough to feel less terrified of monsters and were curious to meet him, they discovered that he was actually a decent fellow, and then concluded that their mother must therefore be the monster.]
And of course, there are custodial parents who play it straight. I’m not claiming that everyone does it.
[I would speculate that a lot depends on whether the mother remarries someone willing to take on a step-father role.]
Of course. Although I should note that for purposes of the point I was making, this distinction is not important.
I’m sure there are some- that’s not a frugal man who believes that a frugal lifestyle is best and is living it himself, both before and after the divorce. That’s a vindictive man who is punishing either his kids or his ex.
One of them said that after his own father left, his family had to live briefly in a homeless shelter. I asked him, “Why would you want to do that to your own kids?” and he replied, “Dad had a 17-year-old girlfriend.”