I believe the figure is called the “expected family contribution.” 
http://www.slfaloan.com/resources/frans.asp
http://www.finaid.org/calculators/finaidestimate.phtml
Obviously, I was right in thinking I’m not being clear about this. I’ll try one last time:
Most people consider it appropriate that parents spend on their kids at least a minimum amount that is commensurate with their own standard of living and income.
Many jurisdictions (not all; see a previous poster’s comment about Nevada) have adopted this opinion as a guideline in setting a universal formula determining child-support payments as part of mandatory post-divorce settlements.
Yes, that means that a majority view is being imposed on the minority of divorced parents who don’t want to spend more money on their children if their income increases.
That’s how universal regulations work: they impose a given standard on everybody, even on the minority who disagree with it. (Similarly, parents who don’t think they should be forced by the law to put their kids in car seats or seatbelts have to do it anyway, because the law says that everybody has to do it.)
I am not trying to argue that the “proportionality” rule about child-support payments is necessarily right, or to tell you that you have to consider it right. I am simply saying that the reason the rule is made that way is that most people think it’s the right thing to do.
Yeah, I’m a veteran of the days when the SDMB “quote” feature was more inconvenient (and space-consuming) than it is now, so I still have the habit of the “alternative” quoting style used by some posters then to save space. I do recognize that many people find it more difficult to read, and I’m trying to reform!
Well, it’s a tough question, and I’m sure there are arguments to be made on both sides. Again, I think it’s reasonable for children to share in the improved standard of living of a non-custodial parent, just as they would in that of a custodial parent. But how do we determine what “improved standard of living” means, for the purpose of calculating child support payments, if the non-custodial parent’s own income remains the same?
It does seem to me that ethically speaking, anybody voluntarily becoming part of a family with children, whether biological, step-, custodial or non-custodial, should be willing to share in the care and support of the children. But legislating that attitude is a hell of a hopeless task.
I agree. I can’t imagine anybody saying, “I’m marrying a nice person. He has three kids, but I won’t support them. We’re going to keep everything separate so that the non-custodial parent and the custodial parent pay for everything!” This just seems repugnant to me. Though I do hear plenty of step-parents complaining that the non-custodial parent is not paying support, or not paying enough, which implies that the step-parent is contributing to support. And I’m sure that this is the reality.
Actually, legislating such an arrangement might not be that tough. You just do it like I suggested. Child support formulas allocate support between parents. They total the income, after deductions, and then look up the income on a table. That gives the total support amount. That amount is allocated proportionally between the parents based on their respective incomes. Of course, as other have pointed out, if the total support amount is less than the actual cost of support (and it frequently is), the custodial parent or the state winds up picking up the difference.
All I’m suggesting is that we allow the income calculation and the allocation of support to include the new partner’s income. So the income amount goes up, and the allocation of the new amount is based on the new income figures. You don’t have to order the step-parent to do anything. Just like in the case of the custodial parent, we just assume that the step-parent is contributing. If they don’t, it’s no different from the situation where the custodial parent does not contribute as much as the state assumes they should: If it amounts to neglect, the state will intervene; otherwise, not much happens.
Just a reminder that the kids are usually aware of what’s going on re: child support, and refusing to pay or making things difficult is a great way to screw up the noncustodial’s parent’s relationship with the child in a very longterm way.
I, for one, will never fully forgive my dad (who I am otherwise getting closer to as an adult) for saying “I can’t pay X amount of suppot; I have a lifestyle to maintain.”
I hope he thinks that money is worth my permanent scorn.
Just curious. How did you know what was going on?
Was this a justification for not paying the support that he was ordered to pay, or part of an attempt to get the court to order less support?
It’s been a while (20 years or so) and my memory is a bit fuzzy. I don’t think I knew right away (although I knew my Mom had to keep going back to court with him, since that was causing problems with time off work/picking me up at school). I’d guess I was told (likely after asking for more info about the whole situation) within the next couple years by my mom or my stepmom.
The former.
If the expected effect is to estrange the child from the non-custodial parent, do you think it is wise to give them this information? Many modern custody and visitation orders specifically forbid parents from sharing this information with the kids.
“I have a lifestyle to maintain,” isn’t a defense to contempt of court. It also doesn’t work very well in arguments about the amount of child support.
But back then, things were different AFAICT. Sucks that you got stuck in the middle. 
Actually, yes, I do think it’s wise. I think I have (and had then) every right to know that my father viewed supporting me in this way. If fathers are going to act like this, they shouldn’t get the “out” of the kids’ not knowing.
I had plenty of my own evidence that he was, in many ways, a lout, regardless.
They call it that, but they don’t actually expect the family to pay - they don’t care if the family contributes it or if the student contributes it. It’s just money that the school or government isn’t going to pay.
And that’s why they say
(Emphasis added.)
http://www.slfaloan.com/resources/frans.asp
That’s a funny way of saying that they don’t expect the family to pay. Yes, lots of students have parents who don’t contribute the expected amount. They have to make up the difference themselves. That doesn’t prove that the contribution wasn’t expected. I suppose a broader point could be made: Society probably doesn’t expect the parents to contribute 47 percent of their available income to a dependent’s education costs–so the expectations incorporated into the formula are unreasonable. I agree with the broader point.
Whoops. Pasted twice by accident. The original material from which the quotation was derived did not have the same sentence repeated twice.
While I’m at it, I meant to include this:
(Emphasis added.)