What is the logic for high spousal support and child support payments

Great Debates
141

This is not complicated at all. Say, Mom lives with her one child in a two bedroom apartment that cost $700 per month. Both Mom and child get the benefit of that. To see what percentage the child adds to that cost, you see what a one bedroom apartment in the same area costs. If a one bedroom costs $500 per month, then the incidental cost of supporting the child is $200 per month.

Then, say Mom wants to move to a better apartment complex where two bedrooms are $1400/month and one bedrooms are $900/month. The incidental cost for the child is $500 per month.

The original $400 difference between places should be all on Mom, and she will then get the benefits of the gym and the pool and the other perks. The $500 difference should be support of the child, but I repeat my points above that it is fundamentally unfair to allow Mom to make that decision unilaterally and for the state to force Dad to pay for it if he chooses not to pay for it.

The child wasn’t in any danger in the old place and the upgrade should be a purely discretionary decision on the part of Dad since it’s his money that’s being asked to provide this upgrade. But, no, since Dad had the audacity to divorce Mom, the state now tells him how to raise his kids. It’s shameful.

142

No, “dad” (or in reality, the non-custodial parent- this isn’t a gender thing), had the audacity to not want the kids to live in his/her house. So they lose the ability to make those everyday nitpicky decisions. You don’t get to decide you don’t want the responsibility, but you still want the control.

It certainly would not end up a simple equation. Let’s say I feel like my neighborhood’s crime rate is too high to raise the kids in. What if the other parent thinks “Eh, people get shot all the time. My kids can handle it.”?

143

You stay on message, jt; I’ll give you that. Three times with “Dad had the audacity to get divorced.” It’s a very emotional way to look at this, and doesn’t make much sense. We’re only talking about this in the abstract and nobody you’re arguing with has come close to suggesting that getting divorced is a moral offense, let alone that it’s one committed exclusively by husbands. It’s silly. Nobody gives a shit whether “Dad” is being audacious or not. There are a certain number of children whose life circumstances are changing, and who can’t be expected to look out for their own welfare. As a result, a court is forced to apply some kind of standard to determine how they’re going to be looked after. The standards are mostly mechanical and predictable, and they call for a reasonable baseline level of support rather than the bare minimum. That’s it. That’s all that’s happening.

Every argument seems circular when you refuse to acknowledge that the starting point and the end point are different things. It doesn’t make even a little bit of sense to say the rules shouldn’t change because of a divorce. A divorce is nothing but a giant change in the rules. It’s like saying that it’s shameful that one spouse has to move out of the house after the divorce. This is how that works. Things change when things change.

144

You keep saying this as if the non-custodial parent has a choice. Unless Mom is a crack whore or otherwise unfit, the court will almost always award her primary custody, whether Dad wants the kids or not. Your statements imply that the non-custodial parents can simply go grab the kids and move them in with him.

Moving to a new, more expensive neighborhood with gyms and pools is not an “everyday nitpicky decision” when Dad is being asked to pay for it.

145

You are mistaken. Something on the order of 95% of custody cases are settled, which is the definition of having a choice (to which you’ll respond that they didn’t really have a choice because they were totally going to lose, but there it is).

And, again, “Dad” not getting primary custody isn’t that big a deal even if he does go to trial and the shameful court slaps him down. In a shared custody arrangement, which would almost certainly be the result if dad went and fought for it and had any case at all, he’d be paying far less in support, and would have plenty of opportunity to enforce privation on his children like he’s always dreamed.

146

I understand that divorce is a huge change that requires a court to make decisions when the parties can’t agree. So a judge has to say, she gets the house, he gets the truck, they split the money in the bank, and she gets primary custody of the child and he gets visitation every other weekend. This is the job of a court.

I don’t understand the need for the next step to determine how much money will be spent to support the child (above the minimum required by law). You may say that since Mom and Dad disagree over whether they should have the best of everything or the minimum that a court should be there to moderate that disagreement.

But such a stance misses a fundamental point: Courts only arbitrate disagreements that are otherwise enforceable in law. If Mom is mad at Dad because he doesn’t want to buy $200 sneakers for the kids, then that is not something a court should hear because Dad has no obligation to buy those sneakers anyways!

It would be like I took my neighbor to court because he didn’t bring freshly baked cookies every week. It’s a nice thing for a neighbor to do, but not something he is required to do and a court won’t hear it.

But, you may say, it is enforceable in law because child support is a part of the law. That’s what I’m arguing against. There is simply no reason to increase a parent’s obligation for the sole fact that there was a divorce. Things will obviously be different after a divorce, but there is no reason for the law to say that pre-divorce $X is an acceptable level of support for a child, but post-divorce, it must be $X+$Y. It is a needless intrusion into the private lives of parents.

147

95% of all cases are settled before trial, custody or not. So Dad does have a strategic choice to make. Does he pay a lawyer a bunch of money and take the case to the mat when his lawyer tells him he will probably lose anyways? That would be foolish.

Also, in the heated emotional state of a divorce, telling Mom that you want to take “her” kids away throws any type of getting along out the window. She will then hire a lawyer and you will be arguing over who gets the 10 year old sofa worth $50.

Plus, most guys realize that even though he can’t live with his soon to be ex any longer, she has always been a good Mom, and it would devastate young children to be without her for long periods of time. Why fight for something that would likely make it even harder on the kids?

148

I don’t think **MandaJo **is talking about moving to a nicer complex/neighborhood/home than before the divorce. She’s talking about moving to a nicer complex/neighborhood than the custodial parent could afford if he/she had neither the kids nor child support , which still may be a decrease from the pre-divorce lifestyle.

149

And why will he probably lose? For the same reason it “would devastate young children to be without her for long periods of time.” Because he wasn’t the primary caretaker,not because he is male.
[/quote]

Or she agrees to less child support than she could get at trial in exchange for custody - strategic choices go in both directions, you know.

150

[QUOTE=jtgain]
I don’t understand the need for the next step to determine how much money will be spent to support the child (above the minimum required by law). You may say that since Mom and Dad disagree over whether they should have the best of everything or the minimum that a court should be there to moderate that disagreement.

[…]

But, you may say, it is enforceable in law because child support is a part of the law. That’s what I’m arguing against. There is simply no reason to increase a parent’s obligation for the sole fact that there was a divorce. Things will obviously be different after a divorce, but there is no reason for the law to say that pre-divorce $X is an acceptable level of support for a child, but post-divorce, it must be $X+$Y. It is a needless intrusion into the private lives of parents.
[/QUOTE]

The problem here is that you’re transplanting a criminal standard into a custody context when the custody context already has its own standard, and then calling foul when the criminal standard doesn’t seem to be the one that applies. It ought to be obvious that it doesn’t apply and shouldn’t apply. “Not committing an actual crime against the child” is not the custody standard. “The best interest of the child” is. This is a good thing unless you’re so locked into seeing yourself as one party to the dispute that you don’t see the big picture.

Legislatures don’t intend criminal neglect laws to set a universal standard for what is reasonable financial support of a child. They do intend the actual child support standards that they write to do that. That’s why they write them.

As I said, I think you’re looking at this backward. The criminal law goes to extreme lengths to allow a parent to be an unreasonable asshole, because the criminal law isn’t about dispute resolution. That doesn’t mean “the law” in general looks favorably on terrible spartan parenting; it just means you have to be pretty committed to have your civil liberties infringed upon. Custody litigation is a completely different setting and it makes perfect sense that a court’s decision won’t be based on that kind of extreme deference.

[QUOTE=jtgain]
Also, in the heated emotional state of a divorce, telling Mom that you want to take “her” kids away throws any type of getting along out the window. She will then hire a lawyer and you will be arguing over who gets the 10 year old sofa worth $50.

Plus, most guys realize that even though he can’t live with his soon to be ex any longer, she has always been a good Mom, and it would devastate young children to be without her for long periods of time. Why fight for something that would likely make it even harder on the kids?
[/QUOTE]

We’re still talking hypothetically, right? I’m not sure what I’m supposed to tell you about what “most guys” realize. You’re giving reasons right now why “Dad” won’t even ask for custody. If that’s what we’re talking about, why were we just arguing about how he doesn’t have a choice? He does have a choice. To the extent that he chooses not to participate actively in his children’s lives, he’s on the hook for supporting the people who are.

I just don’t see how this is supporting your argument that there’s any retributive element against the father in here. You could switch every “Dad” and every “he” in your post for “Mom” and “she,” and it won’t be any less true. Unless you’re arguing that it would be less true, in which case suddenly we’ve got a different problem.

151

You seem to be telling me what the law current is, and I understand that. I just disagree with it. I don’t understand the necessity for having a higher level of support required post-divorce before “civil liberties are infringed upon” when married couples have a lower required level. Yes, divorce means that the parents aren’t living together and may argue more about money and what and when to provide the child, but those disputes are common in parenting. And if a judge is required to settle that dispute, I don’t see why a new standard applies. Those parents divorced each other, but they are still parents that should be free to operate without influence by the courts above and beyond what they were previously required to provide.

We are talking hypothetically. I am married and don’t plan on being divorced. I’m using the gender terms because they are generally true. As another poster pointed out, the court doesn’t say “Mom” is always entitled to custody, but the “primary caregiver” is. Now, we’ve come a long way, baby, but the primary caregiver is almost always the mother. I fully agree with the old “tender years” doctrine that young children usually should be with their mother.

That being said, it doesn’t mean that Dad doesn’t want his kids or is tossing them to the curb. He is still a parent and should be allowed to raise his children (with his income) as he sees fit. I was referring to the posts upthread that it was entirely Dad’s choice to just go get his kids and move them in with him. That doesn’t happen.

If there is a divorce, barring unusual circumstances, the kids are better off with Mom, and Dad usually left with no choice in the matter. Sure, he could hire Alan Dershowitz and try a losing battle to get his kids, but I don’t see a strategic move not to do such a thing as the equivalent of “not wanting” your kids. As I said, getting along with the soon to be ex, having the kids with Mom, keeping litigation expenses down, are all arguably more important than pushing for full custody. And making that choice doesn’t mean that Dad is a deadbeat.

152

I understand that this could be done, but if I were in that situation I would want to lay the cards on the table and do what’s best for the kids. I wouldn’t want to turn it into a negotiation like I was buying straw hats at an open air market in Jamaica.

The case is unique in that it isn’t a tort or contract dispute that when all is said and done you never see the other party again, so going for the throat is not a bad strategy at all. You will have to put up with this person, for the sake of the children, for many years to come. It’s best to be straight-forward.

153 
 I'm sure you wouldn't, but you can't on the one hand say he agreed to that amount of support knowing that a court might order more without acknowledging that she may have agreed to a particular amount of support knowing that otherwise he might wage an expensive fight for custody that he may not even really want.

I also suspect you wouldn’t think your children should have to go from living a middle class life, including extracurricular activities to eating rice and beans and shopping at Goodwill while you had a higher standard of living just because you were no longer involved with their mother, but some men do. Because really, those people who just want to pay the minimum amount needed to keep the kids alive aren’t thinking of the best interest of the kids at all.Most of them don’t have some sort of principled objection to spending more than the very minimum on their kids-if they did, the kids would have been living that lifestyle during the marriage. They are worried about their wallets- and counting on the custodial parent to do everything possible to lessen the impact on the kids.

And it’s not about whether Dad should buy the $200 sneakers or not (although I find it interesting that I have known plenty of men who would absolutely buy the kid the $200 sneakers, but are unwilling to contribute that same $200 to some other expense that doesn’t involve a box that he ,and he alone, can hand to the kid.) The $200 sneakers is what I meant when I referred earlier to the receipts. Courts absolutely shouldn’t be involved in disputes over a $200 pair of sneakers , but I’m not as sure as you are that the parent who thinks a $200 yearly clothing budget or a $10 weekly food budget is sufficient should have the final say.

154

I don’t want to speak for the other poster , but maybe she meant he made his choice when he decided not to be an equal caregiver. “Primary caregiver” doesn’t only mean SAHP, you know. Even two-income families often have a primary caregiver-the person who cares for sick children , buys their clothes, deals with school issues, takes them to the doctor and dentists, arranges playdates and activities, etc.

155

I think this gets more to the point of the issue. Most courts use the “income shares” model for child support. Basically this means that studies have shown that married couples typically spend (and I’m making this number up) 15% of their income on their children. The policy is that since the parents are divorcing, the child shouldn’t suffer by reducing that 15% amount that goes to him/her.

That seems fair, but what it doesn’t take into account is that married couples have only one household to support. One rent/mortgage, one electric and gas bill, one cable/internet bill. In a divorce there are two households to support which will grossly understate what each parent, even loving ones, will now be able to contribute to the kids.

Then, all of that discrepancy falls on the non-custodial parent because he must contribute under penalty of jail. So long as CPS isn’t called, the custodial parent is free to scale back her contribution to the minimum required by law.

So Dad is living in a hellhole apartment just to be able to afford his child support payments. Everything that the kids get comes from Mom. Dad is flat ass broke and can’t afford to buy a $200 pair of shoes because, remember, that type of lifestyle, even if it was possible before the divorce, has already been accounted for in his child support payments. He would love to hand the kid that box of shoes, but he can’t afford it because Mom has the money that would have paid for those.

Now Mom gets bitter because Dad “never does anything with the kids.” And she has had to adjust her lifestyle as well because she is now paying the full bill for her household instead of the 1/2 that she was accustomed to. She will naturally supplement that deficiency from her child support payments in the interests of not living in a shithole like Dad is now living. So, even with the increased money, she struggles increasing her resentment for Dad.

So, you have both Mom and Dad ready to kill each other because of the financial situation that has been imposed on them by the courts. Dad wants to provide but can’t and Mom doesn’t appreciate the child support because she is worse off than she was before. And whose fault is all of this? The courts for imposing the ridiculous “income shares” model which sounds great on paper but is totally inadequate for real life.

In other words, Dad needs to feel like a real father but can’t because he’s broke. Since Mom is living a lesser life than she used to, she blames Dad who then blames Mom for his financial situation.

156

This is what I mean, and I don’t think it’s unusual at all, along with slightly better food on the dinner table for the whole family, cable TV, a more reliable car . . . there are endless things improve the household that I think custodial parents consider as being for the kids and that non-custodial parents consider being ripped off. Those things are likely below what they were pre-divorce, but better than they would be with no child support coming in at all.

157

Cool story, bro.

158

You can assign a pro-rata value for all of that. Cable TV for the house? A certain percentage of that Mom should pay for as it benefits her. A certain percentage can be allocated for the benefit of the child.

Same way with a new car. People do this all of the time for things like business expenses on their taxes.

159

I guess I am doing that. It’s because you keep returning to this idea that if you aren’t guilty of neglecting your child, you’ve got some kind of stamp of approval that you’re supporting your child. In other words, as if the absence of neglect is synonymous with acting in the best interest of your child. In the post I was responding to, you referred to “how much money will be spent to support the child (above the minimum required by law).” That’s a misstatement of the law, and as I understand your argument, it’s a really important one. Criminal laws about child neglect don’t have anything to do with child support. It’s like saying that there can’t be irreconcilable differences in your marriage because you’ve never been convicted of abuse.

What I’m saying, and what I maybe mistakenly think should make a difference to you, is that there’s not a new standard for child support, only the one. It only applies when there’s a custody case. It’s exactly the same as a court order that says you have to drive the kid to baseball practice, or that the kid will spend Father’s Day with the father, or that once a year each parent can take an extra week of vacation, but it has to be in a consecutive seven day block. Nobody was going to throw you in jail before if you didn’t do those things. Nobody gave a shit. But now that a court is forced to issue an order governing the care of the child, guess what? You have to take the kid to baseball practice, etc. etc. unless you come to an agreement outside of court. The court doesn’t care about child neglect laws, because this isn’t a child neglect case. I assume the court will be happy to take notice of the fact that you are innocent of child neglect while it determines the amount of money your ex-wife needs to keep your children from going feral when you don’t even make an argument that you should be awarded partial custody.

Like I’ve been saying, he’s welcome to make his case for joint or partial custody, and to the extent he actually is raising the children, he’ll be free to do so at whatever level of expenditure he sees fit. It’s the rest of the time that support awards are based on.

160

Where in the world did you get that idea? She won’t be arrested and she might not be accused of neglect, but people go to court all the time seeking modifications of support orders and custody.

Except the men I know aren’t living in hellhole apartments and they are buying the kid the $200 pair of sneakers. They’re taking their second families on vacations to Disney World- and they don’t want to pay anything more than a rice and beans level of support for the first group of kids. If the finances are such that the $200 sneakers aren’t possible after a divorce, that’s a different issue. But just because $200 sneakers aren’t feasible doesn’t mean that the support should be based on Goodwill prices.
And BTW, this whole thread started with Cesar Millan- he’s not going to be living in any hellhole with the over $100,000/month he has left after his support payments. But apparently you believe he should only have to contribute to the rice and beans level of support.