Wow. So if a father gets laid off, and has no income, how is he supposed to pay CS? If he has to choose between paying rent and paying CS, he should just become homeless so that the little money he has left can go to the kids?
The mind boggles.
Well, if the noncustodial parent loses his or her job, are the kids just supposed to stop eating or needing a place to live?
There are many inequities and inefficiencies in the child support system, but the kids shouldn’t be the one to pay for a parent’s inability to stay employed.
Which is why we have a public assistance system.
Sure. But parents are still responsible for the children they create. They should pay to support them. We’ve had people quit their jobs as soon as the child support orders come through. We’ve also had people whose total support added up to less than $50 a month. In one case, less than $30 a month. That’s not reasonable.
The principle behind child support payments is that one should contribute as much toward supporting the child as one would if one still lived with the child. If someone makes $100 a month, they’re not going to contribute a whole lot toward supporting the children, whether or not they live with that person. Applying a different calculus simply because the parents have separated is unreasonable and unfair. The uniform rules for computing child support are based on this principle, and they more or less do a decent job of it (although they still interact with tax law rather unfairly, but that’s a separate issue). Those rules are the result of several major cases, some of which went to the Supreme Court. It’s the application of those rules that create the $30 a month support obligation, which is perfectly sensible when you have a parent who can only earn (doing math, $30 divided by .183 is $163) $165 a month due to disability, lack of education, or whatever circumstance that applies in their situation.
I had one case as a guardian ad litem where both parents were legally disabled; neither worked and both survived on various disability aid programs. In that case, the “you can’t get blood from a turnip” rule applied: no support was ordered because you can’t require someone, all of whose income is derived from needs-tested benefit programs, to pay support.
Unfortunately, while the rules were written with that principle in mind, judges, prosecutors, and child support enforcement officers rarely consider it when applying them , and that is where the problems start. If the bureaucracy did more to serve justice and fairness, and less to score political points earned by sticking it to presumed deadbeats, children would probably end up coming out ahead in the long run. The “best interests of the child” are not served by ruining the NCP financially just because someone who works for a child support office can’t do math.
re: losing your job or otherwise losing income.
You can request modification. Many, many people are underemployed purposely to avoid paying high child support. If you have proven you can earn X but are now earning Y for some reason, they aren’t going to modify the amount that is paid, they are going to encourage you to get a better job by keeping the amount the same. If you lost your job and can show that it was due to lay-off, they may modify. You can also request modification for other reasons such as the custodial parent is making more money now.
When we modified support for my stepson, the ex-wife was asking for more money because she was unemployed. We showed that she was purposely underemployed and had the ability to make $13-15 an hour if she chose to work. Therefore, her wages were imputed at the base amount rather than letting her claim no income.
There are many ways to work the system.
Yes, many people are deliberately underemployed to avoid support. Many others are underemployed because they can’t find suitable work, or are ill. Unfortunately, the system tends to treat the latter no different than the former. There is a general presumption in the system that all NCPs are trying to game the system. Yes, many do, but most don’t. It’s very frustrating for those of us who are trying to follow the rules.
Laws always end up seeming like a circular saw when a scalpel is what’s really necessary. It’s a shame that you’ve been caught in the crossfire.
Exactly. If you look at what I posted a few post up, citing the CA child support rules, you could request a modification of support if you were unemployed through no fault of your own. It says that “quitting a job” does not qualify, so that rules out people who become deliberately unemployed.
Well what happens in cases where the parents are married, and one loses his job? Can the state still force that parent to keep supporting the family with money he doesn’t have? Why do we hold divorced dads to different standards than we do with dads who are married to their kids’ mothers? It’s completely and blatantly unfair.
You bring up a very good issue, stretch. We keep hearing about the dads being forced to pay up for their kids, but what about the moms who use the child support payments as their own income, to support themselves so they don’t have to work?
In my SO’s case, his ex-wife is perfectly capable of getting a job. But she won’t – never has and never will. Because the money she gets from my SO is plenty for her to be able to afford to have all the nice things in life and not work. And she’s just plain lazy and self-entitled.
We have seen plenty of evidence that a lot of the child support money she gets is used for her own purposes, and not for the children.
Anyway it would be nice if we could do what you did, stretch.
Another thought: jsgoddess, would you say the same thing to a mother who had no means to support a kid, but decided to get pregnant and have a kid anyway, and then asked for welfare, WIC, Medicaid, etc? Would you tell them that “they should pay to support them?”
I agree that parents should not have kids if they have no means to support them. But that is true for everyone, fathers AND mothers. Your statement seemed directed at just fathers, but mothers are equally as responsible for providing financial support for their kids.
This whole conversation seems to be focused only on how much the dad makes, and what his earning potential is, and that he should be making as much money as he can, and contributing as much as he can, with no regard for himself (as in, if he has to live on the streets, then so be it, as long as he’s paying his child support).
The problem I see for your SO is that if she’s never had a job and has no skills, he’s essentially paying alimony and child support. Is that correct?
Yes I suppose that is true. Which strikes me as terribly unfair. She is able-bodied and could work, but she doesn’t want to, because she’s so used to get getting handed money for the kids, which she uses to support herself also.
You should have seen the dollar signs light up in her eyes when my boyfriend got a new job that was much higher paying.
I’m not unsympathetic to the OP’s situation, I paid child support for about 15 years. I would point out that a woman, w/ minimal job skills and experience, as well as children to take care of, has a difficult time finding a job that will pay enough to cover child care, as well as other expenses related to working, and give her any appreciable money left to live on.
She could use some of the child support money to pay for the child care while she works. Even with a low-paying job, she should still end up with more money. Even if it was only a single dollar more, it would be worth it so that (1) she was working and getting experience to support herself in the future and (2) so she wouldn’t be taking advantage of her kids’ father.
Hey, lots of people who work for the system actually do care about the kids. The problem is a significant portion of the parents that are being chased don’t really care about their offspring. When someone tells you their kids aren’t worth the $25 minimum order, which barely buys a bag of groceries, you realize that the system is not what’s broken here.
Some good, caring folks get caught up in the system but they are usually screwed as a by-product of all the absolutely worthless people out there–not because the SEOs, judges, prosecuting attorneys, et al, don’t put the kids first.
(May I just say thank you all for not lobbing tomatoes at me? In the past both on message boards and in RL when I say what I do for a living it opens a huge ass can of worms.)
It is true that if you quit or are fired from a job it is difficult to obtain a reduction in support. However, if leaving your employer is because you cannot maintain your great grades in college or tech school, then the court will consider it. You’re working towards a more profitable future and most courts look favorably on that. Our courts routinely suspend support while a non custodial parent goes back to school, as long as s/he maintains good grades and has a focused plan. If the job market is such where finding another job with equitable pay is difficult, the courts will look at that also. If you’ve left your job to take care of your sick parents, yeah, the courts will take that into consideration. Here, hearings are usually 3 months out if you are filing yourself. If you request the agency to modify your order it can take up to a year (and a small forest of dead trees). I never tell a client NOT to file a motion. As I said before, life happens. If you’re fired and you can prove it was due to circumstances beyond your control? Bring it in. If you were hit by a bus and now receive RSDI or SSI, bring it in. Actually, if a client receives RSDI or SSI I practically walk them through the courts myself.
Note that if you receive re-employment benefits (unemployment) we do garnish from it. We also are allowed to garnish RSDI, but not SSI. Even if the child receives RSDI benefits on your behalf.
I am honest though. The change in income has to meet a certain criteria. It’s now 20% and $75 change. Meaning, if your order was previously $400, and the courts recalculated it based on your current income, it would have to be at least 20% ($80) and $75 change. If they recalculate it and your new obligation would be $350, you’re out of luck. $320 and it would go forward. That does NOT mean they will not address medical or child care support you may also be currently paying. That may change. If a client comes to me with a $50/month order and says s/he cannot pay it, sorry there will be little sympathy. Go work at a temp agency for three days a month.
Kinda going back to presumed parentage. If you are married, you are automatically legally the father. The parties can contest parentage and the courts can grant a legal exclusion which would release you from paying support. The agency should subsequently do what they can to locate the biological father. The horror cases where the married/not the baby daddy is on the line for support is quite infrequent. Sadly they do happen. When the public hears of these stories it does prompt the courts to review their policies and for the lawmakers to review statutes. We also see the courts NOT terminate support when they terminate parental rights (when it’s a willing termination, not a forced one). The courts opinion is usually that the child needs a legal mother and father. Period.