This isn’t true!!! If both parents continue to be happy with the support, no one will step in and make anyone pay anything! But, if there is an argument, the court will step in. Again, why should one asshole get to decide the lifestyle for both parent’s children because he has more money, or because he doesn’t want custody? How is that fair??? If Dad wants to make the rules, he can take custody, get support from Mom, and make all the decisions.
Let’s just be honest here. Your scenario with the millionaire who’s wife lives in a shack with the kids is strawman bullshit. What actually happens is the man* leaves, doesn’t want custody, doesn’t want to make the decisions, and doesn’t want to pay. He wants to take “his” money and run. Well, sorry. When you get married, unless you sign a pre-nup, everyone’s shit goes into one big pile the court splits down the middle. It’s a well known fact, not a secret. And if you have kids, you have to support them until they are adults. Just because you’ve changed your mind, doesn’t change your obligations.
*or woman, but I’ll keep using your genders for now
When one partner puts the other through school, I think that the first partner has a claim on the higher income that the second partner makes…or at least the first partner SHOULD have such a claim, legally.
When I was in high school and college, I kept hearing about women who put their husbands through college and med school and internship, only to get thrown to the curb when Dr. Hubby started to actually make some money. The women would work as waitresses and cashiers, and that was plenty good enough for bringing in money and taking care of the husband (doing housework and childcare on top of working as many hours as possible) but once he had his own practice, he wanted a woman who was also a professional. Or he wanted his freedom, now that he had a good income.
Of course, these days, the sexes could be reversed, he could put her through school and have a claim to her income.
You might be wrong. Times have changed. Men do get spousal support, just like men do win custody of their kids.
Of course, one of the factors taken into consideration is your own income. If your wife now makes significantly more than you, yeah, you got a shot. If your incomes are comparable or yours is still greater than hers, eh.
Not necessarily. If both of you have decent earning potential, neither will be awarded spousal support. In fact, most divorced couples I know (middle or working class) do not have any sort of spousal support situation.
Wrong state. Quite possible I am wrong about how it works in theory here or in practice. Let me put a theoretical out tho. With no degrees I put her through 2 degrees of her choice yet … do to factors like her degrees do not earn much so yet I earn more. How is this my fault?
It’s not about fault. It’s about the family as an economic unit making an investment. In this case, it apparently didn’t pay off, so there are no profits to split. It’s like if you had used your money to help her start up a business: if it had prospered, you own half, but if it collapsed, there’s nothing there. It’s not her fault or your fault, just the nature of an investment.
I do not disagree with you or your facts. My original post was vs this …
“Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni View Post
When one partner puts the other through school, I think that the first partner has a claim on the higher income that the second partner makes…or at least the first partner SHOULD have such a claim, legally.”
I put her though school twice and she makes more money , both of us have higher “potentials” I would never push her to do so. My claim isn’t we decided to ditch one persons job to raises children, and also its not that no man ever got alimony. My claim is the system/society is biased that men do this and women do that. This was my original point. I did what was claimed that women do Lyn did put that gender natural but both in court and real life its not quite how it realy works. With a more debatable point that if I get divorced the court will not look at me as the one who supported.
I skimmed through the thread and didn’t notice if this had been mentioned or not, sorry if I’m repeating anything.
I don’t know anything about spousal support.
Child support is based on both parents incomes (generally, in most states, your mileage may vary etc). Parents on average spend something like 20% of their income on a kid. In the old days the dad got hit with 20% of his income and that was that, but now they take both incomes into consideration.
Let’s say the parents are married and they make 60k and 40k, or 100k total, so around 20k per year benefits the kid. When they get divorced, the incomes are added together to get 100k, and the child should still expect to get 20k. The one making 60% of the income pays 60% of that 20k (12k), and the one making 40% pays 40% of 20k (8k). The custodial parent obviously doesn’t have to actually pay anything obviously because the money goes straight to the kids benefit.
So when one person makes 10 million per year and the other is unemployed, the first one has to pay 2 million per year in child support. That’s why you have celebrities getting huge child support payments. Obviously, that doesn’t all go to the kid, but it’s the law because it makes sense for 99% of the population.
It may seem like rich people’s problems, but there is something to be said for raising the child in the lifestyle they are accustomed to. If a kid has a live-in nanny, goes to expensive private school and takes European vacations when the parents are together, why should the high earner be living in a mansion doing those things while the custodial parent is living in a 2 bedroom house, struggling to work and care for the child, sending them to public school, and going camping for vacation?
– never married custodial dad who wishes his ex were rich, or even paid a dime of the support she’s supposed to be paying.
This isn’t accurate at all; most divorces are initiated by women, but most support payments are made by men. There’s nothing whatsoever stopping a spouse from leaving, getting a divorce, and then getting support. Happens routinely.
I hate these terms for parents… drives me agh crazy :mad: unenlightened hood rat jargon… Maury Povich/ Jerry Springer is all I think of… “he my baby daddy.” unbelievable :mad:
My question would be… Why are they awarding custody of the children to the spouse with no apparent income. If the interests of the child, and the childs lifestyle, are the thing that is important, then one would think the best place for them is the parent who can best provide for them.
Primary physical custody, when it is argued, is generally awarded to the parent who has been the primary caregiver throughout the child’s life. If that parent was a stay-at-home parent by mutual agreement through the marriage, voluntarily forgoing income for the sake of the child (which is always to that parent’s personal and professional detriment), that cannot possibly be held against them.
“Best provide” isn’t merely an issue of economics, anyway. The emotional, physical, health and educational needs of the child are also taken into consideration. When one parent has done the bulk of the work meeting those needs, the child is entitled to the continuity of having that situation continued.
Many times the parent who earns more is able to do so because they leave the child care to the other spouse. What you are proposing would mean taking a kid who had previously been cared for at home by one parent while the other worked, and putting that kid into day care, essentially removing their primary caregiver and completely upending their life. Does that really sound like it’s the best thing for the child? Our current laws allow the primary caregiver to continue to raise the kid while the other parent continues to pay the bills; essentially a continuation of the arrangement that already exists.
In Arizona there is a formula which adds both parents’ income, takes a percentage of that amount, and divides it by percentage of parenting time. It is capped at $20,000 monthly income unless it can be successfully argued that the child would benefit from more child support, such as if the child has extraordinary needs. Having 30% physical custody of my oldest with a “baby-momma” who refuses to work it broke down that taxes and insurance take 40% of my gross, she gets 35% of my gross, and I get 25% to support myself, my wife, my other children, and my oldest for the 30% of the time when she is with me.
However, the absolute last thing either party should want to do is actually go before a judge and have them decide. A judge’s goal is to make a ruling that neither party likes but both parties can concede is still fair. Through mediation the parents themselves can reach a decision that they both like and both think is fair.
FWIW, I hate the term “baby-momma” too, but there is no better word to handily describe “the person who I regrettably dated for a short time many years ago and have a child with but was never married to.”