Child support amounts are out of control

[Doxy]

@Jeneva

@Fear_Itself

Where do you draw the line? I say it is the person who first says “I want a divorce”, or words to that effect.

Personally, I would say that a divorce is instigated by the person who says either “I’m leaving” or “Get out”, regardless of who initiates the legal paperwork.

In my case, I was the one that initiated the legal paperwork.

But he’s the one that initiated the divorce.

“How” you ask?

By trolling for “slaves” in online S&M chatrooms and then opting to spend what little money we had on buying these damaged women tickets to come to see him instead of paying our mortgage and business bills.

We lost both our business and our home because he wanted to spank/whip/brand mentally damaged women.

We ended up living with his sister.

I may have filed for divorce, but he’s the one that initiated it.

[Captain_Midnight]

The wife left you and took the kids. What about trying to get custody of the kids? What right did she have taking the children in the first place? She left you. Unless you beat her, or are doing something illegal in your home, I do not see why you cannot be the guardian of the children and she pays you alimony.

Women do pay men alimony, because I had a friend who had custody of his daughter. I don’t understand why the woman wins custody unless there is something wrong with her (like being a drunk, abusive etc.). If you both make a 100K a year, and you have a townhouse, and she left you (which means she broke the contract of marriage), she should be the one out looking for the 1 bedroom with the roommates.

Of course, I don’t know you or your situation, and you could have been an insufferable SOB to her. But still, she should have known this before bearing you two children and then deciding at the dawn of her middle age that she needs to go “find herself” and all that, taking your offspring away, with her telling them who knows what about you.

If I may ask, why are you paying $18,000 dollars to send your kid to kindergarten? I mean, I would want the best for my child, but again, 18K to learn her ABC, count to a hundred and fingerpaint. Then you got the other kid in daycare that costs 20K? Where do you live? Are the public schools that you pay taxes to so awful? That frees up **$38,000 **dollars right there (which could be used for their college fund, or retirement that seems wasted.)

Let’s recap…

1.) Take the wife to court. Hire a female attorney to counter any ball buster she has on her side.

2.) Get custody and make her pay the alimony. She left you, and unless you beat her or cheated on her, does not have much of a leg to stand on.

3.) Take your two kids out of those incredibly expensive schools. Save the money for college or other investments.

4.) Keep your house and make her follow up on her decisions to leave you and have her get a crappy apartment with two dirty roommates who can’t wash a dish. You stay in the house with your kids, and if mommy gets tired of the bohmian lifestyle, may come back. Even if she discovered she is a lesbian, there is hope.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Girl_From_Mars

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I’ve noted such studies earlier. And again, I think they are likely misleading, because they don’t account for true net income. It’s not even clear in the descriptions of some of these studies whether the statistics they provide whether these stats subtract spousal & child support payments on the one side and add it to the other…These studies need to focus on bottom line net income, and it doesn’t appear that they do that.

From the UK study quoted, it does very clearly define income as including state benefits and maintenance (support payments):

An individual’s economic circumstances in each year is measured in terms of the equivalized household net income of the household to which the individual belongs. Net income is the sum across household members of income from employment and selfemployment, investments and savings, private and occupational pensions, other market income and private transfers (including maintenance income), plus cash social security and social assistance receipts from the state, less income tax payments, employee National Insurance contributions, and local taxes. Net income is the most widely used income measure in the U.K., and the basis of official income distribution statistics (see e.g. Department for Work and Pensions 2007).

To the contrary, per footnote 10 of that study:

10 In principle, income gains for separating fathers may be over-estimated, because child support payments are not deducted from my definition of income. However, in practice, the bias is likely to be small: see the sensitivity analysis undertaken by Jarvis and Jenkins (1999).

I don’t know how that second sentence follows the first - as in the case of the OP, child support payments can be pretty substantial. (In addition, I find it odd that a study author could find a substantial difference between the income “gain” of fathers with children (32%) and those without children (0%) and claim that the impact of child support payments is likely to be small.)

And if child support payments are not deducted from fathers’ incomes in this study, it’s uncertain whether they are being added it to mothers’ incomes either. But in any event, the failure to subtract the payments alone renders that entire study invalid. (It’s also unclear with spousal support payments are deducted from fathers’ incomes in the study, because although the study mentions adding them to incomes, when discussing deductions is only says “less income tax payments, employee National Insurance contributions, and local taxes”.)

It’s hard to understand why a study of the financial impact of divorce on men and women would exclude such a blatant on significant factor as child support payments. This type of thing feeds my suspicion that these studies are specifically designed to produce the results that they produce.

(Unless child support is radically different in the UK than it is in the US, and is in fact of minimal impact in the UK. In that case, that study would not be applicable to a discussion of the situation in the US. But my impression is that they’re fairly similar.)

[RTFirefly]

@Doxy

By trolling for “slaves” in online S&M chatrooms and then opting to spend what little money we had on buying these damaged women tickets to come to see him instead of paying our mortgage and business bills.

We lost both our business and our home because he wanted to spank/whip/brand mentally damaged women.

Lord knows you’ve got every reason to tear down your husband, who managed to not only involve himself in recurring infidelities, but managed to destroy your house, business, and everything else you’d worked for as well as your marriage in the process.

But there’s no need to denigrate the women he involved himself with. People have different kinks, and just because their kinks aren’t something you can relate to doesn’t make them ‘damaged.’

[RTFirefly]

@Captain_Midnight

If I may ask, why are you paying $18,000 dollars to send your kid to kindergarten? I mean, I would want the best for my child, but again, 18K to learn her ABC, count to a hundred and fingerpaint. Then you got the other kid in daycare that costs 20K? Where do you live? Are the public schools that you pay taxes to so awful? That frees up **$38,000 **dollars right there (which could be used for their college fund, or retirement that seems wasted.)

It helps to read the thread. The older child won’t be in kindergarten until next year. Public preschool isn’t universally available, and presumably isn’t available in the OP’s county.

I’m still astounded by how much day care/preschool costs up his way, which is why I asked the OP if he really needs to live in Montgomery County, which is expensive even by DC area standards.

But to make a more fundamental point:

IMHO, the OP’s all mixed up about what he’s arguing for and against.

The OP’s problem, as I see it, isn’t that court-awarded child support amounts are out of control; it’s that what he and his wife have to spend to raise their children in Montgomery County is apparently out of control.

The OP might have a good GD argument if he could demonstrate the lack of a connection between the two. But I don’t really see an attempt on his part to do so. Quite the opposite - he’s defended the necessity of costly expenses up and down the line. He’s energetically defending the position that it costs a shitload of money to raise two kids in Montgomery County.

[Edward_The_Head]

@RTFirefly

I’m still astounded by how much day care/preschool costs up his way, which is why I asked the OP if he really needs to live in Montgomery County, which is expensive even by DC area standards.

Do I need to live in Montgomery County? Not personally, but my wife will refuse to leave, she’s lived here her entire life and wouldn’t move. So costs for day care and such will not change. I also wouldn’t see my children as much if I moved.

IMHO, the OP’s all mixed up about what he’s arguing for and against.

The OP’s problem, as I see it, isn’t that court-awarded child support amounts are out of control; it’s that what he and his wife have to spend to raise their children in Montgomery County is apparently out of control.

The OP might have a good GD argument if he could demonstrate the lack of a connection between the two. But I don’t really see an attempt on his part to do so. Quite the opposite - he’s defended the necessity of costly expenses up and down the line. He’s energetically defending the position that it costs a shitload of money to raise two kids in Montgomery County.

Well the reason I talked about my situation so much is because people kept telling me to leave, sell my car, which is paid off, and do other things.

I had thought that I said before that it doesn’t matter where in the state of Maryland you live. I know people who work in Allegheny county and make 80-90K a year, where you can buy a house for 100-150k. There may not be as many jobs out there, but they do exist in Cumberland.

So two people live in Allegheny, have jobs that come close to 100k each, that person would pay the same amount of child support as I do even though their cost of living is much much cheaper. That was my point, the cost of living for both parties is not included in anything. There is a set formula that says, one person makes this, the other makes this, child support is this. Period. The amount of day care means nothing so having a family member watch them doesn’t change anything.

Actually since you probably make a good living commuting to DC and going home, if you were to pay support for your child you would pay the same if you lived where you do now, or closer to work. Would you move further away to save even more money and not see your child as much?

So again, there is a formula, not based upon anything but income, you pay this, don’t care where you live there’s no real changing it. You can try and argue in front of the judge, but I’ve been told that they do not go against the formula.

[Doxy]

@RTFirefly

@Doxy

By trolling for “slaves” in online S&M chatrooms and then opting to spend what little money we had on buying these damaged women tickets to come to see him instead of paying our mortgage and business bills.

We lost both our business and our home because he wanted to spank/whip/brand mentally damaged women.

Lord knows you’ve got every reason to tear down your husband, who managed to not only involve himself in recurring infidelities, but managed to destroy your house, business, and everything else you’d worked for as well as your marriage in the process.

But there’s no need to denigrate the women he involved himself with. People have different kinks, and just because their kinks aren’t something you can relate to doesn’t make them ‘damaged.’

I’m well aware of the women he “played” with, having met several and trust me, they were not “whole” and “healthy” women.
They were damaged people that were being taken advantage of by my ex and others like him.

Acknowledging their damage is not denigrating them.
Branding them like cattle and encouraging non-treatment for their disorder/illness is denigrating them.

I understand the value of healthy role-playing in a relationship.
But, with all due respect to you Sir, I met these particular women. You did not.

Surely you don’t think that every single individual involved in BDSM is mentally/emotionally healthy?
Surely you don’t believe that they are statistically healthier than the general population?

Using gen pop stats alone, you have a better than 1 in 3 chance of meeting someone with a disorder.

29.9% of all males have been diagnosed with a mental disease/disorder.
And the numbers increase for women to 34.7%.

I don’t revile these women. I didn’t then and I don’t now.
(Although, I can see how you may have misinterpreted my meaning.)
I do, however, pity them and wish they could get the help they need to become healthy.

[RTFirefly]

@Doxy

Surely you don’t think that every single individual involved in BDSM is mentally/emotionally healthy?
Surely you don’t believe that they are statistically healthier than the general population?

No, I don’t. Why should I? But OTOH, I don’t have reason to think they’re way more messed up, either.

Using gen pop stats alone, you have a better than 1 in 3 chance of meeting someone with a disorder.

29.9% of all males have been diagnosed with a mental disease/disorder.
And the numbers increase for women to 34.7%.

I think this makes the opposite point: mental disorders are abundant among the general population. If this many of us are messed up, then being messed up is pretty normal.

I’m well aware of the women he “played” with, having met several and trust me, they were not “whole” and “healthy” women.
They were damaged people that were being taken advantage of by my ex and others like him.

You’re right: I haven’t met them, and you have. Still, you did seem to be categorizing them as a class. And unless your ex and others you’re aware of forced some of these women into nonconsensual sex or related activities (e.g. branding them against their will), I don’t see that he was taking advantage of them, any more than they were using him to fulfill their own fantasies. Per Bob Seger, “I used her, she used me, neither one cared.”

[Dangerosa]

Its possible that the OP and his ex feel very strongly that the kids’ lives have been upset enough, and changing their daycare, etc. is too much (or even that just his ex feels that way, but the judge agrees with her). Change can be really hard on kids, divorce is hard on kids and one of the things settlements try and do is to limit the extent of disruption.

[RTFirefly]

@Edward_The_Head

So again, there is a formula, not based upon anything but income, you pay this, don’t care where you live there’s no real changing it. You can try and argue in front of the judge, but I’ve been told that they do not go against the formula.

So what you’re saying is that the formula might be perfectly appropriate for Montgomery County, but would be out of whack for Garrett County?

That’s orthogonal to the claim of your thread title.

[you_with_the_face]

@Edward_The_Head

So two people live in Allegheny, have jobs that come close to 100k each, that person would pay the same amount of child support as I do even though their cost of living is much much cheaper. That was my point, the cost of living for both parties is not included in anything.

But childcare in Allegheny is not likely to be as high as in MoCo. You said yourself in the OP that your support is going towards that, so clearly there’s more going on here than a crude formula based solely on income. Also, you’re also subsidizing your children’s housing, which is going to be higher in MoCo.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

But the point is that he is going to be paying the same money anyway, regardless of where it’s going. If child care and housing are cheaper elsewhere, then he would pay the same money and the excess would be used for other things.

The only one who stands to gain - in this regard - by moving to a cheaper county is the ex-wife, and she is not interested, for personal reasons. And in any event, the issue is not especially relevant to this thread, which is from the perspective of the OP, not the ex-wife.

If the ex-wife came in and started a thread about how she can’t survive on so little CS, people can tell her how she should move to an area where child care expenses are lower. But she’s not here. Repeatedly haranguing the OP about how his ex-wife can save herself some money on child care is pointless, and irrelevant to issue that was raised in this thread.

[even_sven]

What image comes to your head when you hear “single parent?”

You picture crappy apartments, coupon-cutting, second hand clothes, etc. right?

You are a single parent. You are a single non-custodial parent, but you are a single parent all the same. Being broke is what single parents do. You gave up your right to spend your money as you wish when you had kids. Things will be unpleasant or inconvenient for you now, because you are broke. Do you think you are the first person on earth to find themselves living below the average lifestyle for their area? You make things work. I promise you there are people living happy and meaningful lives in Montgomery County right now on much less than your after-child-support income.

If you were unable to afford your health insurance, or having to move back in with your parents, or selling off pieces of furniture to make rent, I think people would give you a lot more sympathy. But stuff like getting a roommate, finding cheaper entertainment or moving to a less convenient part of town are the normal everyday things that normal everyday single people do. This is not exceptional hardship, this is normal.

I live in the DC area, and my peer group is mid 20’s to early 30’s professionals. I don’t know a single unmarried person who does not live in shared housing. Nobody I know has their own apartment, much less their own townhouse with multiple unoccupied rooms. I don’t know anyone who lives in a “nice area.” Either they live in somewhat downscale gentrifying areas like Q Street, or they live in cheap-but-far places like Falls Church VA. Everyone has had to give up some safety or convenience. Yes, normal people commute. It’s not unheard of. Only a couple of people in my peer group has cars. Most can afford some indulgences, but when they indulge they try to keep costs down- e.g. going to happy hour rather than regular bars.

This is not unheard of! This is how normal people in expensive cities live! Heck, at least you get the benefit of having a kid who presumably will be there for you as you get older. My friends live with roommates, etc. just to get by.

You said in the OP that you are unable to have a life, going to retire with nothing, being driven into the poorhouse, “a paper bled dry,” etc. That simply isn’t true. You are having to make some large but not unheard of lifestyle adjustments. Welcome to the world that the vast majority of us live in. I promise you, you’ll live.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Desert_Nomad

You say you earn 100k/yr but only get $2050 every two weeks? Something does not add up.

After taxes, health insurance, 401K, etc. a $2000 paycheck sounds about right.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bryan_Ekers

Unless that preschool has Intro to Neurosurgery on its curriculum, $18k sounds pretty absurd.

That’s about what it costs for young kids around here.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Dogzilla

@Edward_The_Head

Dogzilla, you can live off of $550 a month after rent? How do you pay electric, which averages around $100 a month for me, water, HOA, car insurance etc. We have to do a worksheet here and with nothing else I’m in the hole by a couple of hundred every month.

:: sheepish ::

Well, not in the DC area, I couldn’t. I’m in different circumstances now, but maybe 10 years ago, that was probably about the amount I had for utilities (in this city, electric, trash, gas, water, sewer is all on the same bill) food, gas, insurances (car, renter’s), booze/play, cable/internet, etc. I live in North Florida. It’s relatively cheap here. I’m from Ohio, where I could live on $550 a month after rent easily (especially in my hometown). The closer you are to the epicenter of a huge thriving metropolis, the higher the costs of living are going to be.

However, moving to a rural small town isn’t necessarily the answer either because then the commuting costs outweigh the savings in other costs.

I’m just saying. Here we have an OP who makes 100K(ish) a year and he’s complaining about how little money he’ll have after his kids high-end spendy private schools and his McMansion and the his and hers SUVs are split up. (Okay, you didn’t exactly say all that, but y’all are not living in a trailer park on minimum wage working 75 hours a week either.) People make it on that or less. That’s all I’m saying. Most people who have to work at McDonald’s do not send their children to schools that cost nearly $40K a year. That just sounds like crazy talk to me.

Not possible to relocate and file in Virginia? Do the judges consider actual cost of living in Virginia, unlike MD?

I don’t really empathize with the OP but the 18K he is spending on child care isn’t some fancy private school.

[Green_Cymbeline]

@even_sven

Either they live in somewhat downscale gentrifying areas like Q Street, or they live in cheap-but-far places like Falls Church VA.

Off topic, but I just wanted to say that Falls Church is in no way CHEAP. It is a very nice area and rents and home prices are pretty high. It is also not far away from DC. There’s a Metro stop there and it only takes about 15 minutes to get to DC via car or Metro.

[villa]

@nyctea scandiaca

There’s a Metro stop there and it only takes about 15 minutes to get to DC via car or Metro.

If you can drive to DC in 15 minutes from Falls Church at any time of day when a person is likely to have to be going to work, I will tip my hat to you.

[BlinkingDuck]

[

@Sam_Stone

@BlinkingDuck

What does the live-in boyfriend’s income have to do with anything? They are not his kids.

I take issue with this. If a man (or a woman) moves into a household with children, they are making a commitment to those kids. It doesn’t matter who the genetic father is - it’s about the kids. The whole point to child support is to make sure the children’s lifestyle and care is not unduly damaged by divorce. If another man or woman comes into the picture and takes on a parental role, that should let the original parent at least partially off the hook.

To me, the unfair situations occur when one spouse remarries and returns to the kind of family income that was enjoyed before the divorce, while the other parent is bled dry with his or her money becoming extra income for the other family. This is damaging in a number of ways. First, I think it’s unjust. But second, if one parent is now living on half an income while the other is living on two and a half incomes, the standard of living disparity can grow large, which can affect how the children relate to the parents.

And it cuts both ways - if the kids actually like the poorer parent (or dislike the new mom/dad), then they’ll come to see the setup as being unjust, and grow to resent the custodial parent.

To me, a man moving into a family household and living free while someone else pays the bills is just as much a freeloader as a deadbeat dad who skips out on the kids. If it were me, I wouldn’t care what the law said - if I took on someone else’s kids as my own, I would not expect the ex-husband to pay for the kids any more, other than whatever costs he incurs when they are in his custody.

While I understand that you truely think this way…I have to vehemently disagree with you here. The new guy moving in…those are not his kids,. Those kids will not view him as their father…because they already HAVE a father. Even if he was to marry their mother he would still not their father. If the mother dies and this guy finds himself old and destitute needing an old folks home…those kids will not consider it their responsibility because, well, he’s not their father. If his wife dies and his parents in law die do you think he will get a cent from their will? The only thing he will get is lots of legalese to make sure he doesn’t get a cent or ‘profit’ in any way. If his wife dies and he has adult children…he will get pressure because he ‘really’ doesn’t own half the house and the kids should get it right now.

He is not a full part of the family. He is a fifth wheel.

No, Sam, the new guy is not their dad. What you wish to do is force the ‘bad’ half of the parenting onto him but he gets little of the good. If he wishes to help the kids then good for him. However, the main responsibility is on the bio dad even if the new guy makes $200k a year and the bio dad flips burgers at McDonalds.

Unless the guy is older and children are grown, any guy should think twice before moving in/marrying a divorced mom.

[even_sven]

@nyctea scandiaca

Off topic, but I just wanted to say that Falls Church is in no way CHEAP. It is a very nice area and rents and home prices are pretty high. It is also not far away from DC. There’s a Metro stop there and it only takes about 15 minutes to get to DC via car or Metro.

Well, whatever. Choose a place that you consider cheap and far. I chose Falls Church because I have friends there that have a nice two bedroom in a generic apartment complex for less than I pay for my “full of character” one bedroom basement apartment. The trade-off is that they are not walking distance from metro and getting into the city is kind of a pain in the butt. Not a huge dealbreaking pain in the butt, but enough to discourage you from popping over to Dupont for a couple drinks.