I couldn’t find a chart, but basically, the non-custodial parent is given credit for the overnight visits the child spends with (him, for simplicity’s sake). That means that my husband, because he keeps the kids for one overnight per week plus alternate weekends, will be entitled to almost 30% discount in his support, as opposed to the 10% that I had been expecting. (He hasn’t started paying support yet.)
I realize that he’s incurring some expense keeping the kids overnight, but frankly, it ain’t much: a trip to McDonalds, a box of cereal for breakfast, and that’s about it. He lives with roommates, shares his room with the kids, pays no utilities. He provides, for now at least, nothing except for a percentage of daycare costs. He’s damn sure won’t be providing them with $75-88 worth of care each and every week, which is the range his discount appears to fall into.
The only way I can make ends meet with the new guidelines is to get subsidized daycare or to keep working two jobs.
Wow. I’m rarely struck speechless, but I just don’t know.
I think some of the rationale behind this change is as follows:
Keep the non-custodial parent involved with the kids. In general, this is probably a good thing (cases of abuse and other Bad Things being an exception) for the kids.
If the non-custodial parent is more involved with the kids, he/she is more likely to pay support. This might be true, I don’t know for sure. In which case this strategy might wind up with more support paid overall, and fewer deadbeats, and I suppose one could argue you’re better off getting some support on a regular basis than none at all, or “support” you need a lawyer to collect. But there’s the difference between theory and practice.
But there is still the problem of non-responsible parents, parents who don’t have enough money to take care of themselves, much less kids who aren’t living with them, and all the other ills the system is prone to.
Good luck, bodypoet. I hope things work out for everyone concerned.
Is my math really off or were you awarded $1000 in child support but are now upset that he’ll get about $300 back because he’ll have the kid approx. 26% of the time?
If this is the case, it doesn’t seem that unfair to me. If he has roommates, he probably wishes he had a little more $ too. Raising children is very costly, as you know, even with a two income family. It should be of no supprise to either of you that it’s tougher to make it while separated.
Ask yourself this. How much would be enough and how much would that leave for him?
“Upset” is too strong a word, I think. I haven’t been awarded any child support yet; he is, at this point, 13 months in arrears and I’m waiting for a court date. I’m just having to rethink my future budget in terms of this new ruling.
I’ve done the budgeting, and I know exactly how much would be “enough”–“enough” in this case meaning enough to pay for housing, clothing and food, and utilities. No savings, no college fund, no extras.
He can afford to live on his own; he prefers to have roommates because he likes to party and it saves him money. His housing costs are about $350/month; mine are in the neighborhood of $1500 once I take over the full house payment. Yes, I’m planning to move, but that means either selling the house or declaring bankruptcy, or both. It also means uprooting the kids from the only home they’ve known.
I guess the issue that leaves me flummoxed is this:
26% is not as accurate as it seems. He picks the kids up in the evening and drops them off at noon. So his expense consists of dinner and breakfast, basically, as his living accomodations are exactly as they would be were he childless. He keeps the kids 26% of the overnights, but he doesn’t raise the kids 26% of the time, if you see what I mean.
$300 may not seem like a lot to some folks, but that’s my grocery budget for a month. If it’s in my pocket, it goes to raising the kids. If it’s in his, it flat-out doesn’t. And it’s going to have a huge effect on what I can afford housing-wise once the child support does finally fall into place.
I think its great. Florida has something similiar. Its really not fair that I have my son close to 40% of the year but am still expected to pay full child support. Non-custodial parents still have to provide for the child when they are with them. The custodial parent’s food, water, and electricity don’t magically come with the child once we pick them up. Plus this frees up a little more cash for me so that I can do more stuff with him and buy him clothes, toys, etc. So in a way it still goes to the child anyway.
If you’re disputing the amount of money spent on child care on the days he drops the child off, I can certainly see your point. If you’re suggesting he pay your $1500 mortgage + clothing + food and utilities, then I can’t see that.
My last apartment was about 40% of what my mortgage pmt is. There is no way I could afford it alone; much less while raising a child. I’m sure it sucks to think about moving into an apartment, but that might be your best option. That of possibly rent out a room in your house.
Giving the non-custodial parent “credit” for overnights is fair if and only if the rest of the child support obligations are paid faithfully.
It’s a two-way street - the non-custodial parent has obligations to provide financial support in a timely manner (and if the job situation changes, to make changes and arrangements through legal avenues). The custodial parent is not to interfere with the non-custodial parent’s visitation rights.
Indiana has not, historically, done a good job of enforcing either end, which may be part of what is alarming bodypoet.
I’m glad it works for you, Amp. I would agree that if you are keeping your son 40% of the time, and raising him–buying clothes, groceries, keeping a home with an extra bedroom for him, taking him to the doctor if he gets sick when you have him, etc–then I think it’s reasonable for you to not pay full support.
My ex does none of those things. Except the groceries, I suppose, which cost him a bit extra. In this particular case, his water and electricity DO almost magically appear–rent is the ONLY payment he has. He’s lucky, yes, but unfortunately I don’t have the option of moving in with a bunch of my buddies and living in the spare bedroom.
You situation sounds fair enough*, and I’m not quite ready to label this one UNfair. On the other hand, I have expenses that he can forgo, because he isn’t the custodial parent. As I said, I’m just not sure what I think of it all yet.
*I’m assuming that your kids are equally well-provided for (or that they could be, at least) when they are with your ex. If they’re surviving on food-bank rations while you’re able to buy toys, etc, then I’d have to re-think my stance.
So far, I’m not disputing anything–I’m just trying to figure out if I can afford to work ONE full-time job, pay my bills, and avoid bankruptcy. I certainly DON’T expect him to pay the $1500; I was just pointing out the discrepancy in his living costs and mine, which is due at least in part to the fact that I’m raising the kids and don’t have the cheaper-housing options (such as t he spare-bedroom scenario) that he does.
An apartment isn’t an option at this point, and considering that I have four kids and only three bedrooms, I’m not sure what I could rent out. (Or who on earth would be crazy enough to want to live with us, heh.)
Thanks, R B.
Sorry, I wasn’t as clear as I should have been either. I have two children with him, both in daycare.
I was expecting $200-225/week in support; now it’s looking like quite a bit less.
I recover quickly; I’m feeling much better than I was this morning. Always in the forefront of my mind is that I would sacrifice any amount of money to be free of him. He’s an abusive SOB and I’m well shut of him.
13 months in arrears. We’re still waiting to have our provisional hearing. And you can bet the farm that I’m going to have his support garnished from his wages; otherwise he’d hold it over my head every week.
Does Indiana charge interest on support in arrears? Because if they don’t, they should, and it should go to you. Plus they should charge collection fees to the parent in arrears.
Has he contributed anything at all to the upbringing of these children, besides the occasional Happy Meal? I can’t friggin’ believe it.
Well, last summer he bought them each a pair of sandals.
Actually, he still makes my half of the house payment. He insists that money is in lieu of child support; my attorney says it isn’t; I’m willing to leave it up to the judge to decide. Even if he gets full credit for the house payments he’s made, he will still owe several thousand in arrearage.
He says he’s “willing” to pay it, but not until a judge makes him. I would NOT want to be in his shoes when he tries to explain to a judge why he thinks he shouldn’t have to pay back support.
The other day he berated me about a daycare situation, saying I should have handled it because “that’s why I pay you child support.” Sometimes his sense of entitlement just leaves me speechless.
Umm, nope, he pays child support for his children. The ones he helped create, I’m assuming, willingly. You are merely administering that financial support, such as it is, as the primary adult caretaker. And I know from experience that child support rarely comes close to covering half the direct and indirect expenses of raising children. And that’s before one factors in all the unpaid labor you are performing in raising the children. Just imagine if you made even minimum wage for all the hours you put in doing that…
One overnight a week plus every other weekend is essentially respite care. I’d love to be a fly on the wall when the judge puts your ex in his place.
Here in Canada, a man can be made to pay upwards of 85% of his income in child support. Personally, I think child support laws should be written so that each parent pays an equal amount of the cost to raise a child. And base it on an average cost. Nothing like “I want my children to go to private school, so I’m going to drain every cent out that louse of an ex-husband so they can go.”
Yeah, this is a hard one – and I respect bodypoet for being so balanced about it. On the one hand, for most of the non-custodial parents I’ve known, the new guidelines would be fair. Most of the non-custodial parents I know maintain homes for their children – by which I mean the kids have their own rooms in the non-custodial parent’s home. They have furniture and toys and clothing provided by the non-custodial parent and kept at the non-custodial parent’s home. The non-custodial parent buys food and snacks and personal supplies for the kids and keeps these things at their home for them. And of course, the non-custodial parents pay for the difference in rent or mortgage for a larger home, as well as for the extra energy costs, etc. These kids basically have two homes, one maintained by each parent, and it’s fair that the support should reflect that.
But, clearly, in bodypoet’s case, the guidelines aren’t fair. Her kids don’t have two homes – they have one home and do no more than crash at their father’s pad during visitation. My only recomendation is to hope that since the term “child support guidelines” is being used instead of “child support rules” there will be room for a little latitude by the judge. Make sure you have documentation of your ex’s living conditions (especially that he has one room and shares it with the kids during their visits). If I were the judge I would take that into consideration if I could. Particularly if your ex makes enough money to provide a better home for the kids but chooses to live cheaper and spend the balance on partying.
In any case, your ex sounds like an idiot. Congratulations on getting shed of him. Good luck and let us know how it all works out.
Bodypoet, I’ve been wondering how you’ve been doing.
I have nothing to add of intelligence that will make your ex husband magically be kidnapped by aliens at the same time you win the Powerball, but I don’t know how you do it.
Moving out of your house would be the first thing to do to help keep your head above water more so that you are waving, not drowning. I know this is not a newsflash to you. but January-March would be an excellent time to look at houses, as most homeowners are fairly desperate to sell by this point.
Yes, your kids have only known one house, but they are pretty resilient and will manage. Finding a more affordable home will possibly allow you more time with the kids and less money hassles.
If I ever win the lottery, I’ll send a little soemthing your way. Like an Acme Safe to land on your ex’s house or something.
If this were implemented as the OP suggests, I agree that it does provide an incentive for non-custodial parents to be more involved with the children’s lives.
However, it also seems that the savings the NCP gets is above the extra they are spending in order to have the overnights. Of course, I think that in many cases, the child support awarded is excessive to begin with, but that does not matter here, the difference in payments is indeed startling.
So high, as a matter of fact, that I wonder if it is not a perverse incentive for custodial parents to work as hard as they can to deny the visitation rights of NCPs, in order to prevent them from getting the bonus. I would wager that the type of parents who would do this would be the same ones who work the system to get the excessive child support awards.
