Cesar Millan was in the news regarding his divorce, he has to pay $23,000 a month in spousal support and $10,000 a month in child support for two kids. I have no idea why the spousal support payment is higher than the child support payment, or what that is about (you’d assume child support would be higher). But either way, if someone ‘needs’ 400k a year to make ends meet for one parent and two kids they are doing it wrong.
But when a celebrity or a wealthy person ends up paying such high amounts in spousal and child support, what is the logic that the judge uses? Unless you are living in a very high end house in one of the most expensive parts of the country, why does someone need or deserve 30k a month in ‘support’? The word support implies support, not opulence.
Why aren’t alimony and child support designed to keep people out of poverty instead of give them upper class luxuries (in situations where the main wage earner can afford upper class luxuries)?
Would a cap of $5,000 or so a month with extra allowances as needed ( if the spouse or child has medical conditions, high rent area, college tuition) be a better idea?
Alimony and child support payments are based on income. The logic is that children become accustomed to living a certain lifestyle and parents must continue to maintain that lifestyle following a divorce. The same is true of a spouse. They’re entitled to continue living a lifestyle commiserate with the one they had while married.
Why a ceiling of $5000? If you argue that no child deserves more than basic support, then there should be some sort of flat rate (adjusted for regional cost-of-living) that every non-custodial parent pays regardless of their income. If you accept that a well-off non-custodial parent has a responsibility to chip in towards a better-than-poverty lifestyle in a way that a poor non-custodial parent doesn’t, then the rest is just quibbling over details. Which is your position?
But why? Life isn’t the same after a divorce so why should the children expect it to be the same? By that same logic then when the primary custody parent gets remarried to someone who makes the same or more then child support should go away or be reduced yet it’s not.
Because they already are. So what happens then if they get divorced, by the same logic the children should get more money because they have become accustomed to having all of those extra things. What happens when the children can no longer take all the expensive sports that they have because they get the money from the biological parent and the new step parent?
I can give one example, around here, near DC, swimming is very popular, and very expensive. It costs 3-4k every 3-4 months to swim on a team. If a child is swimming because they get money from both the biological parent and the step parent and can swim, what happens if that marriage fails and the child can no longer swim but wants to because of costs. Is it now tough luck for the kid?
Things change when there’s a divorce, everyone has to learn to cope and neither parent will be the same financially so why should the children be the same off if no one else is? This is not to say that the children shouldn’t have things but why should it be expected they live exactly the same?
If you have children you should expect to have to support them until they’re 18. The fairest way I can think of to assign a number to child support is based on the income of the parents. Someone who worth $80,000,000 is going to pay more in support than someone who makes $52,000 a year. Do you have an alternative?
Help me out here. What is the reason for a cap? I mean, obviously, there has to be some awareness of the non-custodial parent’s income in the calculation – you can’t just assess a flat rate that’s the same if it’s a parent struggling to get by versus a parent who’s doing okay. I mean, it seems natural that the amount the parent pays would be based on their income.
So what is the logic behind capping it? Since it seems logical that a (non-custodial) parent earning $15,000 a year wouldn’t pay the same as a parent earning $35,000 a year, why wouldn’t a parent earning $80,000 a year pay even more?
There’s no obvious reason at all I can think of for there being a cap.
Because, despite all the talk about it being for the child or spouse’s benefit, it’s actually a punitive measure against the person who left. Someone who makes more money has to be hit with a larger fine to punish them more.
There is no way that the parents’ income would have any value in determining how much money the child needs to be taken care of if that were the only concern. It would be a fixed amount for any child if that were the case. And it would be taken from everyone and not just the person who left.
Child support is about punishing the person who is seen to have abandoned the child. If it were welfare, it would be set up as such.
And I don’t say the above with animosity, either. While I personally believe the child’s welfare should be more important, I accept that society disagrees with me. I just hate that they lie about it.
The concept of ‘support’ implies that the goal is to help the rest of the family ‘make ends meet’ so the family will have enough money to survive and function. However the current goal seems to be more ensuring the same level of lifestyle is achieved as was obtained before the divorce. I don’t agree with the current definition of support then.
Pensions and social security are designed to help people make ends meet in retirement, and to my knowledge they never reach the levels that comes in alimony or child support. You can lead a decent lifestyle with pensions and SS, but not 50k a month. To my knowledge social security is not designed to give you the same lifestyle you had before retirement, it is designed to support you so that you can still maintain a relatively middle class life.
These numbers aren’t about parents who make 80k a year. It is about parents who make 3 million a year and pay 60k a year in alimony and child support.
With the big deal that seemingly everyone makes of marriage, it always surprises me that so many people have such a disdain for the theory behind alimony and child support, or that they get off on these jags about punishment. These people got married and had kids, didn’t they? There was like a whole thing about two becoming one, with all my worldly goods I thee endow, and all that? Then there’s a divorce and it comes time for an equitable division of property and suddenly it’s “why does this person deserve”. I don’t know, but you signed up for it. It’s not like it’s terribly difficult to avoid having one’s personal property joined with another’s if you’re really worried about it.
Why should a wealthy parent be able to jettison their spouse and kids and thereby reduce their expenses to less than what they were before the divorce? Why should the children of this divorce, who have no control over the situation, have to suffer through not only the loss of their family but of their previous life as well?
Wealthy people do not need your protection or your advocacy. I’m sure Mr Milan will be fine.
You ask why Illusion Millan needs $23,000 a month. Why not ask why Cesar Millan needs $23,000 a month?
Nobody “needs” that high an income. But the fact is this particular couple has that much income. And while Cesar may be the one with the TV show, for legal purposes the couple is generally considered as a single entity for the period when they are married. The court is going to divide their assets 50/50 like they were a business partnership breaking up.
The judge isn’t giving Cesar’s money to Illusion. The judge is giving half of the couple’s money to Cesar and the other half of the couple’s money to Illusion.
You didn’t answer the actual question. I assume you can’t. But just in case: it’s obvious that child support has to be linked to income, or you’ll see obviously ridiculous results, like a man who is unemployed being expected to pay the same as a man who earns $40,000 a year.
Why is it that you think there should be a cap? I don’t think there is any valid reason. You certainly haven’t come up with one. Help me out here.