Your hypothetical ex might do that, although one would have to wonder what you saw in her in the first place. It is possible for a custodial parent to pull something like that, but it’s just not that likely. Parents generally try to raise their kids to be as happy and well-cared-for as they can, no matter how they might feel about the other parent.
Oh boy, can of worms here.
I don’t want you guys to get me wrong. I don’t have a magical system ready to go that will solve all these problems. My questions related to finding out if in fact there is no accountability for money awards granted in a divorce and that has been answered.
I do, however, maintain that there are going to be “gross abuses” as another poster mentioned and that there should be some kind of very basic oversight that would stop them. I’m not suggesting a massive accounting department of the government be created to combat the practice.
Couldn’t some kind of basic review or system be setup that would stop the worst of it? I feel so bad for the guys, and it is mostly guys, who wind up paying support for a kid that winds up being spent by mom.
I don’t think this is really an issue. Consider the following:
Mother is expecting a child support check from ex-husband in the mail. The mail didn’t run today because it’s a national holiday or whatever. She has a few dollars set aside that she was going to get herself a new pair of shoes with. She needs money today to pay the child’s day care, get the child’s prescription filled, get the child’s haircut, etc. So, she uses her shoe money to get one of the above done, and then just gets her shoes from some of the money from the child support check when it arrives.
You wouldn’t suggest the mother set up an entirely different checking account and be required to account for every dime, would you?
One way you can rest assured that your money is going to go toward the child is to consider that although you feel like you are paying hefty child support fees, it really is just a drop in the bucket compared to what child overhead really amounts to. If you are a father concerned that your money is going toward things other than child support, offer to keep the child yourself for about a month. You’ll soon see that you are more than likely getting off very lucky in the grand scheme of things; children are a massive expense. It’s doubtful your ‘support’ is doing more than simply cushioning the financial blow a little.
Unless you’re paying some ungodly amount (1800.00 for one child is an assload and if I were paying that much I’d be looking for the ex to account for every nickel).
Please describe how you think such a basic review or system should be set up?
I swear, I do see your point, Cheesesteak. And just like **RickJay **said, I’m sure (I know) there are bad stories on both sides of the fence, which is too bad, because it’s only the children that pay in the end.
But I’ll argue that the cost to raise a child is directly related to the income earned by the parents, and that expenses will increase with income. Why? Because that’s the way the world works. Just as I have a right to reap the benefits of getting a good job, or a raise, or winning the lottery, so do my children. Just as if my husband gets a raise, his children (who he pays support for) deserve to reap the benefits from that. They get to wear nicer, more expensive clothes, they get to live in a nicer house, in a nicer neighborhood, with a bigger TV and maid service. They get to take ballet lessons, piano lessons, go to camp, have more toys, take vacations, go to private schools, and so on.
The solution certainly is not to say “It only takes x amount of dollars to provide a child the basics in life, so that’s all they get.” By doing so, wouldn’t the non-custodial party then be the selfish, neglectful one?
And unless we’re talking about a *significant *amount of money, I just don’t see how someone could (or would, for that matter) spend ‘most’ of an awarded support amount on themselves alone, without signs of irresponsibility or neglect.
Doesn’t seem like much of a GQ thread anymore…
I’d say this can only be true if he retains enough parental rights to have a place in the kid’s life other than a source of income. After all, your kids aren’t entitled the benefits of Bill Gates’s wealth; why should they be entitled to the wealth of someone who’s nearly as much of a stranger (except that they share half of his DNA)?
Furthermore, it’s arguable whether your children really do “deserve to reap the benefits” of your wealth. If you get a new job that pays twice as much, are you obligated to buy more expensive clothes or toys for them just because you can afford to? I would say not. You can keep spending the same amount on your kids, as long as you’re providing adequately for them, and use the rest to pay off debt, buy a new car, or whatever you want. You have a right to reap the benefits of your new job or lottery winnings, but no one else does.
Similarly, as long as the noncustodial parent’s contribution is enough to provide for the kids adequately, I don’t think they’re entitled to any more of his money just because he now has more than he used to.
Mr 2001: You have a right to reap the benefits of your new job or lottery winnings, but no one else does.
Similarly, as long as the noncustodial parent’s contribution is enough to provide for the kids adequately, I don’t think they’re entitled to any more of his money just because he now has more than he used to.
However, child support payments are calculated on the basic supposition that most parents want to spend as much as they can reasonably afford on their children, not just provide them with adequate basic support.
We’re pretty much stuck with having just one yardstick per legal jurisdiction to determine divorced parents’ financial contributions. It would rapidly get very complicated and wasteful to have a bunch of different yardsticks and try to figure out which one applies best to a particular couple’s individual choices about how lavish a lifestyle they want to give their children.
And if we’re going to have just one yardstick, it’s probably best to base it on the majority of parents who want their children’s standard of living to increase with their own, rather than the minority who just want to give their kids a minimal amount and spend all the rest of their money on themselves.
Mr2001:
I agree about the forum, even the OP acknowledged his question was answered.
I think your first question is absurd. Some fathers maintain only a financial relationship with their children by choice. The ‘except half the DNA’ statement is a pretty fucking big ‘except.’
And personally, I don’t think it is arguable that children should (I see your point, however, ‘right’ and ‘deserve’ might be a teeny bit overpowering, but they work for me) reap the benefits of a parent’s increased income.
Just as **dolphinboy ** stated, if financial circumstances change, and a non-custodial parent should earn less, they have a right to go to the courts to have their payments reduced. Then what? Do the children suffer inconveniences because of less income? I’d say 99% of the time they most certainly do. So, they can suffer the hard times, but not revel in the good? Tough shit on them for being, you know, kids? Dependant on their parents?
And wouldn’t my paying off my debt or driving a new car benefit my children? Yes, in some ways, sure it would, or at the very least, it could.
And as I alluded to in my earlier post, I think ‘adequately’ is subjective.
Bill Gates’ children probably wouldn’t consider the monies ordered to support the living conditions of some children adequate for their hired help, and yet the courts may deem it perfectly acceptable based on the parent’s income.
Obviously extremes, but they make the example, I think.
The people who want to spend as much as they can reasonably afford on their children will do it anyway, law or no law. But when someone needs a law to force him to spend money on his kids at all, why would we think he’d willingly adjust the amount he spent in proportion to his income?
And some of them maintain only a financial relationship with their children because they’re legally unable to have anything more.
If “inconveniences” are the only result when the child support amount drops, it was already more than sufficient to begin with, don’t you think?
My answer to this is that payments should not be reduced below the amount that’s necessary to raise the child. If your kid needs $500 a month to pay for heat, food, etc., then you’re obligated to supply it, and if you can’t afford it, you need to get a better job. But by the same token, if you can afford it and then some, what you do with the rest should be up to you.
And what if you can’t get a better job?
You tell me… what happens if you can’t make enough money to feed the kids who are in your custody?
One possibility is to apply for welfare benefits. Many people with kids are living on welfare. And, in the worst case scenario the custodial parent could have there kids taken away by state child protection workers. Note that this wouldn’t be a concern for those paying child support, as they already don’t have custody.
Sweet.
Hookers and blow! 
Seems like this solution should work for those who can’t afford child support too. After all, if the point of child support is that the child deserves this money, then why should it matter if it’s coming from an employer or Uncle Sam?
Mr2001: The people who want to spend as much as they can reasonably afford on their children will do it anyway, law or no law. But when someone needs a law to force him to spend money on his kids at all, why would we think he’d willingly adjust the amount he spent in proportion to his income?
IANA family-law expert, but as I understand, it, a court-approved custody and child-support arrangement is mandatory in all divorce cases where there are dependent children. Not just the ones where the parents wouldn’t support their kids unless the law forced them to.
So the law essentially has the job of making a one-size-fits-all rule—a single chug-and-plug- formula based on parental incomes—that will determine the “right amount” of child support for everyone. (Like the above-mentioned “DisoMaster” child-support calculator in California, for example.)
ISTM that it makes sense to make that rule reflect what the majority of parents, rather than the minority, consider an appropriate provision for supporting their children. And the people who think that the child’s standard of living should rise with the parents’, instead of staying at a basic minimum while the parents spend all their additional money on themselves, do seem to be solidly in the majority.
What about setting up a bank account which all checks that are sent get deposited into. You’d then get a Visa check card to make most of your major puchases which would be easy to audit. Of course this won’t stop all the abuses but would perhaps stop some of them. It may also make people think twice about responsible use of the money. Give the ex husband the ability to see exactly what she purchases with the money and I’ll bet abuses are curbed somewhat.
Does anyone really think its more fair to allow the ex to spend the money in any way she see’s fit? Anyone care to guess at the percentage of people who abuse the use of their monthly child support checks?
I do, and I pay child support. I believe my ex will use pretty much all the money she gets to make the kids’ lives better, including what I give her. If I didn’t think that, I would spend all of my money fighting for custody. I do not need to be able to audit her bank accounts to figure this out. If I were to take custody of the kids, I would not appreciate having my bank account audited.
Bongmaster: *What about setting up a bank account which all checks that are sent get deposited into. You’d then get a Visa check card to make most of your major puchases which would be easy to audit. *
How would you handle shared expenses with such a system? Would, say, the custodial parent of two kids have to pay one-third of the rent from his/her own checking account and two-thirds with the child-support Visa card? Same for utilities? How would Custodial Parent pay for two-thirds of a carton of milk at the supermarket with the card while buying his/her own third of the carton separately?
And how would the “audits” you speak of be handled? Would they be routine periodic events for every child-support recipient, or just on request from the support provider? Who would pay for the bureaucracy to perform and process them?
I can’t see any way to set up a formal oversight or review system of the sort you suggest that wouldn’t be vastly more complicated and expensive than the current system.
Bongmaster: Does anyone really think its more fair to allow the ex to spend the money in any way she see’s fit?
Not necessarily more fair, but definitely more practicable. Trying to officially supervise and regulate child-support expenditures by divorced parents in general would just be a bureaucratic nightmare.
And remember, along with the “unfair” advantages of the custodial-parent role come some “unfair” disadvantages too. It’s hardly fair that the custodial parent has to be the one doing all the work of caring for the children, sitting up with them at night when they’re sick, making sure they get to school on time, etc., while the non-custodial parent lazes around free as air with no childcare responsibilities (except during the children’s visits, if any).
But since it would be too complicated and impractical to expect non-custodial parents to perform childcare duties for children who aren’t even living with them, we just let it slide. Similarly, because it’s too impractical to have an audit system for how custodial parents spend their child-support payments, we let that slide too.
Keeping in mind that we only ever really hear about the abuses and absurd cases, maybe this is going too far:
Calculate “what it costs” to raise a child. Don’t account for type of house, etc. That’s mom’s (usually it’s “mom”) problem if she wants to live on the lake. Just a good, basic median. Take half of that, and it’s your minimum payment, whether you can afford it or not.
Now take income into it. Follow whatever “bonus” formula you think is good. But don’t let mamma buy crack. Put half of this NEW amount into a trust or something. Mama and Papa can release funds for special things – hockey equipment, band trip to Florida, whatever – but it’s always there, and can’t be abused. If mom needs a new roof, well, maybe. If pop takes kids for a couple of weeks in the summer, then maybe he and mom can release some of the funds for that trip, too (otherwise pop’s paying double those two weeks, right?). Here’s a really, really good part: when kids are 18 (or 21 or whatever you set up in the trust), if there’s any money left, then it goes to THEM.
Just brainstorming… no real thought here. Tear it to shreds as you will.
Again, we come back to that word “abuse.” That’s gonna be really hard to nail down.
I don’t really buy the theory that the more you make, the more your support should be, though. IME, as a lawyer and as a child support payer, higher support tends to lead to a better lifestyle for the custodial parent as much as it does for the kid. The custodial parent’s lifestyle is supposed to be supported by alimony, if the court decides to award alimony. And alimony is a lot harder to get these days. The rule of thumb in Ohio, for instance, is that alimony is awarded in marriages that are long-term (around 20 years).
Also custodial parents are pretty much exempt from imputed income which means that they can change careers, stop working, or start a home business (that loses money for a few years), while the non-custodial parent has to take jobs that pay at least as much as when support was first ordered.
Since around 5 out of 6 custodial parents are women , this rule has a significant impact on men.