Another interesting thing…
Let’s say I remarried, had another kid, then got divorced, and the 2nd wife got custody.
Guess what? The 2nd child is only worth 5% of my net. The first child still gets 25%, the 2nd child 5%. A third would be 3%, and the system is maxed out. Subsequent children wouldn’t cost me anything.
'Course by then I’d be shaking hands with St. Peter.
One reason why the custodial parent’s income should be factored in: It’s not good for the kids to have two parents with widely disparate standards of living. It’s hard enough for the NC parent to maintain emotional ties with the children, but if they have to stay in a hovel when they are with him but stay in a mansion with Mom, it’s going to be even harder.
I don’t buy the ‘lifestyle for the kids’ argument anyway. Show me how it benefits the kids to have their parents drive a Mercedes instead of a Ford Taurus. If there is any correlation between wealth and childhood happiness it’s pretty weak. Once a kid is no longer in abject poverty, the quality of his upbringing and the happiness of his childhood depends on the love he gets and the attention he gets, and not on how much money he has. I’ve seen a lot of kids get screwed up because their parents had too much money.
In thinking about this, what I’d like to see is something like a minimum amount that must be paid which represents the NC parent’s share of the regional cost for quality housing, nutritious food, decent clothing, etc., plus a monthly spending allowance for the child. That may total $300, or it may be $1000, depending on the area of the country we’re talking about. Over and above that, any increases should reflect the incomes of both parents. I don’t think the NC parent should be responsible for ANY more unless his or her income is is higher than the custodial parent’s, for one thing.
If the custodial spouse re-marries, the new husband or wife should have to assume some responsibility. How much, I don’t know. But just the fact that they moved in and can pay half the rent should absolve the NC parent from the rent portion or at least part of it.
I don’t have any kids of my own, but I have talked at some length with a friend of mine who has one. This guy makes a darned good (6 figure) salary, and his child support payments are more than my entire salary.
Which might not be so bad in and of itself, except that:
(A) The mother has not let him see his kid in over 4 years, and he wants very badly to be part of the kid’s childhood. And,
(B) There is no accountability at all on where all that money is going. It sure doesn’t seem to be going towards things that would benefit the kid. The mother has not so much as started a college fund with any of the money, so if he wants that to happen, he has to do it on his own with money that is not part of the normal support payments. The legal system apparently places no accountability at all on the parent who receives the payments.
© The mother has since quit her own job and has no income of her own.
It’s a real raw deal, IMHO. And this guy is like the nicest guy you could ever want to meet. He doesn’t complain about the monetary part, but damned if I would in his shoes. He’s getting screwed on both the financial and parental fronts. He’s tried repeatedly to get the mother to let him see the kid, but no results so far. I could maybe see that if he was a really bad influence or something, but I think I’m a pretty good judge of character, I’ve known him for over 7 years, and I think he’d make twenty times the parent the mother is. He’s a good guy.
–
peas on earth
dhamnson:
"in thinking about this, what I’d like to see is something like a minimum amount that must be paid which represents the NC parent’s share of the regional cost for quality housing, nutritious food, decent clothing, etc., plus a monthly spending allowance for the child. "
How would you possibly determine these things? Plenty of two parent households raise children with out what most middle class people consider to be “quality housing, nutritious food, decent clothing, etc…” We don’t take thier children away. What the hell is quality housing?
Of course, money does not by happiness, but it can sure as hell help. I am mostly thinking here of the sort of oppertunities that money can offer to child, not the creature comforts. For instance, it is a great shame but no crime when the child of poor parents is never able to develop his incredible musical talent because no one can afford lessons. On the other hand, it is negligent for wealthy parents to deny the same talented child lessons because they want to spend the money on frivolities. In the same fashion, wealth (or even middle-classdom) can open the way to better schools, university education, exposure to different parts of the country, newspaper subscriptions, etc. More prosaically, look at dental care. It is a luxury for many people, not a necessity, and years later you can tell the people whose parent’s had the money to send them to a dentist/othodontist. Andd this can make a real difference in your life–You can be the brightest, best dressed, most well spoken person in the world, but if when you open your mouth people see a bunch of twisted black teeth, you are at a seriious disadvantage at job interviews. Poor people can’t help thier kids with this, but wealthy parents have an obligation too.
{{{Guess what? The 2nd child is only worth 5% of my net. The first child still gets 25%, the 2nd child 5%. A third would be 3%, and the system is maxed out. Subsequent children wouldn’t cost me anything. }}}—Rysdad
Sounds like heaven!
Back in '92 in CA, I was ordered to pay exactly 85.925% of my net income for child support, and the District Attorney is supposed to be keeping the books on the whole deal. (Don’t hand me the supposed federal laws regarding the 65% limit–when the NCP is male, they obviously don’t apply.)
Even though I’ve been paying the support, they claim that I haven’t paid a single cent. She (my ex) has been kicking back–not working–since the disso; even though the judge ordered her to work. The court refuses to enforce the order, claiming that a person can’t be compelled to work.
Their interpretation of the issue is one of compulsory work, equating it to slavery…so they do nothing while I’m sentenced to a life of slavery, while my ex laughs her way to the bank.
Nick, you’re entitled to your opinion…too bad it isn’t more objective. I did expect more of you, but maybe you had a bad day too.
Sorry folks, but I avoided the issue for a long time, but this thread just brought it out of me on a particularly bad day.
I’m going back to work…
–Kalél
Common ¢ for all ages…
“Well, there was that thing with the Cheese-Wiz…but I’m feeling much better now!” – John Astin, Night Court
Standards for reasonable housing, clothing, food, etc. are easy enough to come by, especially if you’re willing to fudge on the high side instead of striving for absolute accuracy. When you get a student loan they use a formula which factors all this stuff in, and the same applies when you try to get welfare. It’s a trivial matter for a state agency to do a survey to find out average real-estate prices, etc.
Another possibility: You have to support the child to that minimum amount, OR to maintain the standard of living that the family had before you split up, whichever is higher. This avoids the problem of the main breadwinner leaving and putting the other parent and children into a lower standard of living, which I’m guessing is why the laws regarding income came to be in the first place.
Another possibility: After you’ve paid the minimum amount, the NC parent has the option of putting excess funds directly into an education fund or other trust fund that only the child can access after his 18th birthday.
The bottom line is that divorce is a terrible thing to put kids through, to be avoided at all costs. One way you avoid divorces is to make sure there are financial consequences for both parents. I wonder how many divorces ultimately happen because one person knows he or she will get custody and a big cheque every month. Especially in the case of an extra-marital affair the financial boost could be enough reason for someone to demand a divorce.
I just have to make a couple of quick points:
1.Support does not equal visitation. Even abusive nc parents have to pay support. Child support is not rent on the child for a few hours.
For example, mr trumpy makes one million a year, but gives his wife a mere $100,000 per year to run the home…the rest he keeps. Upon divorce, he must pay her $250,000 per year. OK, her income goes up, but there arent alot of men who make a million per year, and the wives dont reap the full benefit, cars, boats, homes vacations etc.
E1skeptic…why dont we put her and shitboy in a boat and get scotty to shoot it out of the water? Isnt there anything you can do? 85% is awfully harsh.
In this province, it is closer to 15%.
Wanna relocate? 
Kelli is quite right that support and visitation are unrelated. Whether the NC parent is up-to-date on the payments or not, they still have the right to see the kids. Of course, if they’re way behind, they might also find a cop waiting when they show up for visitation.
God, I loathe that word–visitation. It seems so demeaning.
Manda JO, a wife is entitled to the amount of support that would allow her to keep the same living style.
Support= alimony & child.
dhanson:
“Standards for reasonable housing, clothing, food, etc. are easy enough to come by, especially if you’re willing to fudge on the high side instead of striving for absolute accuracy. When you get a student loan they use a formula which factors all this stuff in, and the same applies when you try to get welfare. It’s a trivial matter for a state agency to do a survey to find out average real-estate prices, etc.”
They have done that. It is called the povery line. Do you really think that a man who makes six figures should only maintain his children at that level?
dhanson:
“Another possibility: You have to support the child to that minimum amount, OR to maintain the standard of living that the family had before you split up, whichever is higher. This avoids the problem of the main breadwinner leaving and putting the other parent and children into a lower standard of living, which I’m guessing is why the laws
regarding income came to be in the first place.”
This would basically condemn many people to dead beat dad status–I mean, if the household cannot reach the poverty line with two working adults, how will it reach the povery line when there are two households?
The fact is, in virtually all divorces, the standard of living for both families is going to go down. Two households now have to be supported on the income (both parents together) which prevously had supported one. Unless there was previously a large surplus of cash that wasn’t being used. . . The question is , is the household with the children going to decline into abject poverty and want while the house without the children stays middle class?
I still hold that in our society money buys oppertunity, and that both parents have an obligation to their children to provide as many oppertunities as they can, not simply to keep those children from dying of malnutrion or exposure. (the result of a minumun standard)
About step-parents:
Several people have posted that the income of step-parents ought to be figured in. It seems to me that if you were going to do that, you would have to take into account the income of the non-custodial parent’s spouse as well–I mean, If the new person is paying 1/2 the bills now, so the non custodial parent should have more money available for the children, right? THis leads to a real funny effect:
Suzie marries Johnny. Upon doing so, her child support payments take a hit because she is now married. At the same time, Johnny’s child support payments go through the roof because he is now married to a woman w/ a job. That is a lot of income loss, and I suspect that it would stop a lot of marriages and lead to a lot of live in type relationships.
In fact, if the NC parent remarries, the new spouse’s income IS taken into account. And, if the NC parent takes a second or part-time job, that gets taken into account, too. At least in MN.
I have personal knowledge of this. I took in a renter and the courts added the rental income into my gross earnings before calculating support.