I disagree. Both parents choose to have the kid. Both take on the responsibility of support. Then they split up, and one gets to decide whether to work, and what job to take, and the other’s choices are court-supervised. None of what you have said justifies this distinction. And the very notion of “primary breadwinner” is a throwback. I don’t know anybody my age (38) or younger who “chose” to be the breadwinner. I certainly did not. In fact, I wanted to stay home with the kids, and I have been a stay at home parent at times. Economic circumstances, cultural pressure, and poor choice of spouse (for example, the same ex, when we were married, and I was staying at home, took substitute teaching jobs on an irregular basis, while refusing full-time teaching positions–part of the reason for our divorce and for her divorce from husband 2; then she stopped subbing entirely, opting to start a home business with no plan–exhausting the remainder of our savings on the business) forced me back into the job market each time.
We already harp on it for both parents. As you pointed out above–they chose to have a baby (At least the social assumption is that they chose; I think it is safe to say that in most cases, they chose to have sex–setting aside Mackinnon’s claims). Therefore, they each assume burdens in the event of divorce. There is no guarantee that the burdens will be fairly or evenly distributed. Nonetheless, both sides can argue for a fairer distribution of the burdens, and “Hey, it isn’t fair right now. Life is tough all over,” isn’t a meaningful response.
I don’t think I ever claimed that anything made it fair for anybody. My point is that there is absolutely no reason that the custodial parent should have a free pass when it comes to work–and the law is that they pretty much do. Simply saying, “Life isn’t fair,” begs the question.
I prefer your attitude, too. Divorce sucks–no question. I don’t wish it on anyone.
Keeping in mind that I have no horse in this race, no children, no skeevy ex’s ect, I really must comment on this.
Your BF wasn’t a single guy, he was a father - if his daughter was coming to stay with him, of course he should have diapers and clothing on hand for her. It’s not like he’s some random guy babysitting, he’s the father. Really, he should have all the usual stuff associated with a baby in his place.
Regarding the partying at the bar - well who knows. Maybe she bought diapers and formula with BFs $$ and was on a date financed by someone else.
I think it’s really easy, when in the role of new GF, to slag on mom, when you don’t actually have all the facts. In fact, it’s really easy to slag on pretty much anybody, when you dont’ have all the facts. Doesn’t make it true tho…
Might be true in some cases, certainly not in all. My sister never really had any choice of whether or not to workor which job to take. She had to get a job that would support her and her son even if she didn’t get the $200/month in child support that was ordered. Of course, the $200/month would barely have covered half the cost of childcare when he was a toddler (assuming she got it- I don’t think he paid more than twice a year. And forget garnishment- doesn’t work if he gets paid under the table)
I know plenty of men around your age who specifically chose to be the breadwinner. They are indeed throwbacks, but they exist. They have virtually nothing to do with their children. If they end up home with the children while their wife is out one evening, they call it “babysitting”. I’ve seen their wives and kids at sports events, scouting events and school events- but never the men.
The majority of parents do think that as the parents standard of living rises, so should the child’s- as long as they are a family unit and no child support is involved. But something changes when the parents split up. I know a few people paying support who feel that the children they are paying support for are entitled to the bare minimum and the custodial parent should provide anything more. Support shouldn’t include anything for rent- CP has to pay rent anyway, CP could live in a studio with the kid, and if CP chooses a one or two bedroom, then why should NCP have to pay for any part of the cost? Kids don’t need to go to camp,play sports or participate in school trips or other extracurricular activities. If CP wants them to, that’s a personal choice and NCP shouldn’t have to contribute. Which would be a defensible position if in fact the NCP behaved that way while the parents were still together. But they didn’t not. Those same people paid happily for the bedrooms, the camps, the sports and the school trips while the family was a unit and they pay happily for them for the children of a subsequent relationship.
She didn’t have a choice because she needed to support herself? Yes, it was classist of me to assume the typical middle-class case, where the support award is a good size and the non-custodial parent has a legitimate job.
For a limited time, at least, most people in these circumstances can get public assistance. When they do that, though, they usually have to work, go to school, or be trying to find work. And if they get cach assistance, they usually have to turn over their child support award to the state. Of course, if the child support isn’t being paid, it’s sometimes a better deal to take the cash assistance. I saw lots of people in that position at Legal Aid. I’m not saying its a good deal–it sucks. But it is available. But you are right: When the support is low and other forms of assistance are unavailable, the custodial parent’s work choices are more limited.
And you are absolutely right, as I acknowledged earlier, only about 45% of custodial parents actually get all of the support that they are owed.
At Legal Aid, I saw all kinds of deadbeat parents and lazy bureaucrats. OTOH, I also saw lots of honest people who got screwed by the bureacracy that was supposed to be helping them.
Sorry missed this post earlier. Here’s one thing that I go back and forth on: What do you think about taking a new partner’s income into account when either parent begins to share income or housing with someone? After all, the newly-partnered spouse’s expenses are partially subsidized by the new partner. And the new partner gets the benefit of the buoying effect that we discussed earlier.
It still is a defensible position: they think that as their own standard living of rises, so should the rest of their household’s. It’s just not the position you want them to take.
not only does that happen but in my case I had the child and the ex wife went to the state to collect welfare and claim the child on the form. The state propmtly came after me for support and it took years to clean up the entire mess. At the end of the day I paid about $7000 in support for the kid I had full custory of. (I lost track of the total amount over the years because they nabbed tax returns, garnished pay, ect)
To make matters worse the ex wife didn’t pay me support and some months out of the blue they’d start collecting from my wage again and I had to make ends meet with half a pay check and a kid to feed. As the state considered me a “deadbeat dad” they never wanted to help me and NEVER beleived a word I said.
As far as I know no charges were ever brought on the ex wife by the state.
As a veteran payer of child support, and as a disappointed seeker of custody, I can tell you that there’s something very wrong with a system that is primarily designed to keep children from broken homes (as they used to be called) off the welfare rolls. When people complain of the inequities and burdens of the child-support system, and its lack of concerns for how moneys are spent, how the law seems arbitrarily enforced, they are neglecting that the state basically doesn’t care about that stuff–child support exists to see that the state doesn’t get sent all the bills subsequent to a divorce.
Example: a middle-class guy gets divorced from a vindictive woman of independent means. (Let’s say her family has millions, but the couple while married lived primarily on his modest salary). She can extract child support from this poor zhlub, not needing it in the least, for the pleasure of reminding him what a terrible husband she felt him to be, and of course she gets custody because how could he ever do battle with the high-priced lawyers she has dragging out the legal custody battle until the end of time?
What does this scenario have to do with justice, or who’s the parent more devoted to the kids’ interest, or how much money the kids require? The kids go from living on 40,000 per year pre-divorce to living on 400,000 per year, so their standard of living is obviously being bettered, but she wants to make it 415,000 per year because that extra 15,000 will make it that much harder for the poor zhlub to hire lawyers to contest any of this.
Does the state care? Not a whit. It’s completely irrelevant that maybe the kids would be better off if he had custody and the kids lived on 200,000 per year (his 40,000 plus a healthy slice of her trust-fund money, released to her following the divorce.) But the state will never get to hear a custody argument, the kids will live with a less loving parent, and the father will be hounded to cough up the sum that barely makes a dent in his kids’ standard of living.
But since this is irrelevant to the states’ interest (seeing that kids don’t join the welfare rolls), these issues are never brought up before a judge. The child-support formula is followed, and everyone’s life is made harder.
At first, I was with you on this, but then it occurred to me…
Let’s say you are the father in question. What do you prefer, to be completely removed from your financial responsibilities as a parent just because the wife’s family happens to be wealthy? Why should her mother and father be made responsible for your children just because they can afford it? Aren’t the children your responsibility?
If I were ruling on such a case, I might point out that your wife is raising those children full time, and that you can consider the child support as your contribution to that cause, needed or not. If the grandparents are content with financing their grandchildren’s’ lives then fine, you can pay this child support to an account that will be used for their education down the road.
The support system is set up to ensure that if you are the parent that does not have sole custody, you pay, regardless of financial circumstances. Whether a third party can or will accept financial responsibility doesn’t change the fact that you have responsibilities to your own children. It seems to me that if any changes need to be made to the system, those changes should benefit the individual who has full-time custody and is providing full time care of the children.
I don’t think a parent’s partner should be expected to pay for the children. Of course, it’s very nice of them if they do, but they didn’t chose to have the kid, so why should they pay for it.
FWIW, my parents are divorced and I lived with my dad. My mom rarely paid child support. Looking back, I am very grateful to my stepmother, who I know used large portions of her income to help support me.
Also, when I was filling out the FAFSA form for college student aid, they took into account my dad’s income and my stepmother’s income. Any child support that my dad received (not much) was to be recorded separately. I think that system is bogus–why should my stepmother’s income be used in the calculation of parental support?
They chose to marry or move in with the kid’s parent, and that parent did choose to have a kid. And as you have pointed out, for most other purposes, their income is considered. If the custodial parent gets the tax benefits of having the kid, the new partner shares in that benefit. The custodial parent gets to use the new partner’s income on credit applications, and sometimes, as you have pointed out, the new partner’s income actually is counted in determining what kinds of benefits the kid is entitled to. So pretty much every authority except the child support authorities assume that the new partner is supporting the new kid.
I’m sure I’m missing something here; I just don’t know what it is.
Usually pre-existing child support obligations get deducted from anybody’s income before support is caculated.
For example, assume my current child support obligation is $1000/mo, and my income is $4000/mo. If I have a child with somebody else and am ordered to pay support, the award is based on my income less my current support award. So in this example, my pre-existing award is calculated based on $4000/mo, but my new award will be calculated base on $3000/mo. (That means that my first child support obligation stays the same no matter how many more kids I have.) The same rule could easiliy be applied to the partner.
And what if the new partner doesn’t have kids? Should we not include that partner’s income because some partners do have children?
I didn’t realize this. In the guidelines I’ve come across (obviously not for every state, and I know they are different) support orders could be revised based on number of children, even if they come later.
And my answer to your question is a partner’s income should never be included during child support awards.
Why should I have 3 people who are responsible for supporting me? My younger brother (dad and stepmom’s kid) only has 2. My dad wouldn’t be expected or allowed to use child support money to support my brother, so why should my stepmother be expected to support me? Don’t get me wrong–she did and I’m grateful for it. But I figure she had to go through enough stress in chosing to marry a divorced man with a child–I don’t see why she should have to further pay monetarily.
That’s right. It depends on whether the new partner has custody. If either parent has more children that live with them, then that parent’s income is reduced by some amount and support is recalculated. The same could be done with the new partner’s income.
To clarify, if a parent has a child support award, and then a second court considers an award for a new child, the existing award is deducted from income and the second award is calculated on the reduced amount. Similarly, if either parent has another child after a child support award is entered, and the parent lives with the child, there is no child support award to deduct from income. So the income of the parent with the new child is reduced by some amount, and the support is recalcuated.
My point was simply that if the new partner has children, there is already an existing model for taking the support of other children into account.
Why not?
Most people think that she legally could.
As others have pointed out in this thread, it would be difficult for her to avoid doing so. Did she set up a separate bank accounts, buy food separately, and house you separately?
I think most people would expect her to do just that (pool the money and use it on all of the kids).
Then why not have the child support award reflect the economic reality of the situation?
Uh, you talking about a single guy who happens to be the father of a baby, right? You mean that every time the child needed a diaper it was a big surprise to him?
Absolutely I’d expect him to have a case of diapers in the house. And clothes, a place to sleep, the right type of food, and toys. That’s what just about every parent of a baby has in their possession.
Not to say the woman in this instance wasn’t abusing the system, but IMHO it’s not very realistic to expect any mother to send baby to his or her dad with a suitcase or two of everything they may require or the staples needed for routine care if the dad had any sort of visitation.
This doesn’t actually mean the government (or school) expects your stepmother to support you, or that she has any legal obligation to do so. It just means that they will take her income into account when deciding how much to give you, in the same way that they use both parents’ incomes if the student meets certain criteria, even if the student is self-supporting.