Child Support

[wdwmom3]

Oh after reading just part of this thread I'm glad we have a simple system here in Canada. If you make $x then you pay $y in support based on the number of kids. Plus a % of things like daycare that is a ratio based on both parents income. So if he makes $50000 and I make $100000. He pays 1/3 and I pay 2/3. No fighting over amounts or going back to court endlessly.

And to those who think someone receiving support should have to show that the money is spent on the children, remember this. My house, utilities, cable, Internet, and phone all are things partially for my kids. People use their cars (and gas and insurance) to drive their kids places. When I go out to eat so do my kids. When I buy furniture etc for my house that benefits my kids. Basically anything I pay for except for my clothes, hair cuts, and other personal expenses of mine, benefits my kids. So having to show that the support $ I receive is spent on my kids is the stupidist thing I have ever heard. I may go out an buy myself a new pair of shoes after I get my support payment but every expense incurred to provide for my kids comes right out of my account.

 

[DarthKTrava]

I wish that was the case but once the support check is in their hands, the ex can do whatever they want with it. My brother's ex is always behind on her rent, the utilities, and her other bills. The car has 4 bald tires and the inspection is due this month. The kids complain that there's never any food in the house (as in "There's never any juice in the refrigerator but Mommy always makes sure there's beer."). She won't take the kids to the doctor when they're sick because she doesn't want to foot the bill for the co-pay or the medicine. My niece was wearing sneakers that were 2 sizes too small because the ex didn't have the money to buy her a new pair.

My brother pays much more than what the state would have told him to pay for child support and he has no idea where it goes. He ends up paying the doctor bills himself (they're supposed to split them 50/50), takes the kids shopping for back-to-school and summer clothes and pretty much covers any of their incidentals because she doesn't even purchase so much as a tube of toothpaste for the kids.

He's aware that child support is also supposed to go to put a roof over their heads, water, electricity and gas in the car. But when the ex complains that she can't even afford these, one has to wonder where the money is going?

Sounds like someone that should fight for sole custody of the kids. She's neglecting them!

 

[wdwmom3]

Sounds like someone that should fight for sole custody of the kids. She's neglecting them!

Exactly. If the situation is really that bad they should fight for custody. Any parent who would allow their children to live in that bad of a situation (if it really is that bad) is just as neglectful as the parent with custody. I'm sorry but someone's responsibility for their children is more then sending a cheque each month. Sounds like he needs to step up take some responsibility and fight for his kids.

 

[ilovemk76]

I think some people would be singing a different tune if they were trying to live off of 24% of their income.

Sent from my Samsung S3 using DISBoards

Some of us would have done the calculation of our after retirement income before we retired. When we saw it was too little, we would have not retired.

Oh after reading just part of this thread I'm glad we have a simple system here in Canada. If you make $x then you pay $y in support based on the number of kids. Plus a % of things like daycare that is a ratio based on both parents income. So if he makes $50000 and I make $100000. He pays 1/3 and I pay 2/3. No fighting over amounts or going back to court endlessly.

And to those who think someone receiving support should have to show that the money is spent on the children, remember this. My house, utilities, cable, Internet, and phone all are things partially for my kids. People use their cars (and gas and insurance) to drive their kids places. When I go out to eat so do my kids. When I buy furniture etc for my house that benefits my kids. Basically anything I pay for except for my clothes, hair cuts, and other personal expenses of mine, benefits my kids. So having to show that the support $ I receive is spent on my kids is the stupidist thing I have ever heard. I may go out an buy myself a new pair of shoes after I get my support payment but every expense incurred to provide for my kids comes right out of my account.

This is how some states do this. When you divorce, if you were a SAHP, you don't still get to stay home and have the other spouse pay you to do that. You can choose to not get a job, but they calculate the income you could get and then figure that into the calculation.

 

[JessB320]

Exactly. If the situation is really that bad they should fight for custody. Any parent who would allow their children to live in that bad of a situation (if it really is that bad) is just as neglectful as the parent with custody. I'm sorry but someone's responsibility for their children is more then sending a cheque each month. Sounds like he needs to step up take some responsibility and fight for his kids.

I'm sorry but you have NO IDEA how hard it can be for a father to get custody taken away from the mother! It's a lot more than him " stepping up"
we spent 3 years and no joke $85000 getting our oldest kids into school and out of a really crappy situation. Without A LOT of solid evidence there are still states where the courts are very very biased. Please don't be do quick to judge

 

[NotUrsula]

Oh after reading just part of this thread I'm glad we have a simple system here in Canada. If you make $x then you pay $y in support based on the number of kids. Plus a % of things like daycare that is a ratio based on both parents income. So if he makes $50000 and I make $100000. He pays 1/3 and I pay 2/3. No fighting over amounts or going back to court endlessly.

And to those who think someone receiving support should have to show that the money is spent on the children, remember this. My house, utilities, cable, Internet, and phone all are things partially for my kids. People use their cars (and gas and insurance) to drive their kids places. When I go out to eat so do my kids. When I buy furniture etc for my house that benefits my kids. Basically anything I pay for except for my clothes, hair cuts, and other personal expenses of mine, benefits my kids. So having to show that the support $ I receive is spent on my kids is the stupidist thing I have ever heard. I may go out an buy myself a new pair of shoes after I get my support payment but every expense incurred to provide for my kids comes right out of my account.

And that is good because you are doing the right things for your children and putting your basic living expenses at the top of your priority list. However, there are some people who do not. (And a lot of them are still married, and when that's the case the kids just have to take it.)

I know of one situation where the custodial spouse developed a gambling problem, and a whole lot of what should have been going to living expenses went to online gambling. In that case, the court ordered the support to go into a separate account that was maintained by a trustee and set up with auto-pays for the mortgage and utilities, school tuition, etc. Only AFTER those expenses were paid did the custodial parent get to draw from the account, and only for expenses from approved vendors, such as for car payments.

 

[wdwmom3]

I receive support for my one son. Here in Canada my income is not considered when they determine how much support his dad has to pay. So say he makes $40,000 a year he has to pay $350 a month (just an example not actuall numbers). I could make $20,000 a year or $200,000 a year. It doesn't matter (except for other costs like daycare). Basically each parent is responsible for financially supporting their children. If I need more $ a month it's up to me. This is the fairest way to do it. Although my ex disagrees and thinks he shouldn't have to pay anything since I make substantially more $ then him.

So I yes I go on vacations with my kids and things like that while he struggles to pay his bills sometimes. But just because I make more $ doesn't mean he gets away with not providing for his son.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

To add to this. I fully feel the parent receiving support should have to prove where the money goes and be held accountable as well and not just sit and collect. I feel for your son OP and you for your loss

Sent from my Samsung S3 using DISBoards

Realistically, this would be impossible. First, you'd be imposing a lot of work on the custodial parent to track and record all the expenses (including that part of rent, utilities, gas, etc. would be for the child's benefit) and calculating them. Then you'd have to pay for someone to verify all of it. And are you going to do this monthly? Because you might have some months when the money isn't all used for children's expenses, then another when the child needs winter coat, boots, etc., and it costs more.

I know that when non-custodial parents have complained, they have been told "If you feel that your ex is not properly meeting the child's needs, if you think his/her use of the money is a problem, then you should seek custody."

Otherwise, you need to trust that as the child's parent he/she is appropriately using the money to meet the child's needs.

TP

 

[ccgirl]

My friend has 2 kids under 18- he has been paying 26 percent of his pay for child support since his divorce. He recently retired- his ex-wife gets 50% of his pension plus still gets 26% child support- so he gets 24 percent of his income to live on- in no way do I think that is fair. Of course he should have to support his children but 76% of the money he worked his whole life for was going to his ex - he should have just kept on working until his child support was done and then retired!

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but if he was paying 26% of his income for child support, that means he was keeping the majority of his pay 74%. I know he's retired now but, as you said, he should have to support his children. Did the ex-wife work or was she a stay at home mom? Did she have a retirement or did they build up his retirement thinking they would both live off it one day? I used to be dead set against alimony until a post on here actually. A woman was talking about how she remained a stay at home mom as they both decided and never got a job. She took care of the house, kids, bills etc. He put the max in his pension so they could live off that. He ended up leaving her and she did get 1/2 of his pension. Why shouldn't she?? Technically, they both "worked" for it. I never looked at it that way until she made that point.

 

[JessB320]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but if he was paying 26% of his income for child support, that means he was keeping the majority of his pay 74%. I know he's retired now but, as you said, he should have to support his children. Did the ex-wife work or was she a stay at home mom? Did she have a retirement or did they build up his retirement thinking they would both live off it one day? I used to be dead set against alimony until a post on here actually. A woman was talking about how she remained a stay at home mom as they both decided and never got a job. She took care of the house, kids, bills etc. He put the max in his pension so they could live off that. He ended up leaving her and she did get 1/2 of his pension. Why shouldn't she?? Technically, they both "worked" for it. I never looked at it that way until she made that point.

I agree she should get half of the pension, but she will be getting 76% of it. When he retires that becomes his income, she was getting 26% so the 50 % should be an increase already . Instead she is double dipping so to speak, and now will be getting both her 50 plus another 26. I would guess his lawyer missed some wording in the parenting plan and now he's stuck.

 

[mamabear0222]

Oh after reading just part of this thread I'm glad we have a simple system here in Canada. If you make $x then you pay $y in support based on the number of kids. Plus a % of things like daycare that is a ratio based on both parents income. So if he makes $50000 and I make $100000. He pays 1/3 and I pay 2/3. No fighting over amounts or going back to court endlessly.

And to those who think someone receiving support should have to show that the money is spent on the children, remember this. My house, utilities, cable, Internet, and phone all are things partially for my kids. People use their cars (and gas and insurance) to drive their kids places. When I go out to eat so do my kids. When I buy furniture etc for my house that benefits my kids. Basically anything I pay for except for my clothes, hair cuts, and other personal expenses of mine, benefits my kids. So having to show that the support $ I receive is spent on my kids is the stupidist thing I have ever heard. I may go out an buy myself a new pair of shoes after I get my support payment but every expense incurred to provide for my kids comes right out of my account.

When you say it's the stupidest thing you have read....so it's right to have one person struggle to eat and have a roof over their heads while the other person is living in luxury taking vacations? This is what is wrong with humanity these days. Providing for your children is one thing. Living the life of reilly because of support payments while someone else suffers I do not agree with. (And before you say that is stupid too I am not saying you do this. I don't know you)


And just to be expand on this, if you never HAD kids, you'd still have your home expenses, car, gas, insurance, food, utilities, buying new furniture etc. Before I had kids, I still had these daily living expenses. With or without kids.

Sent from my Samsung S3 using DISBoards

 

[PrincessKsMom]

I agree she should get half of the pension, but she will be getting 76% of it. When he retires that becomes his income, she was getting 26% so the 50 % should be an increase already . Instead she is double dipping so to speak, and now will be getting both her 50 plus another 26. I would guess his lawyer missed some wording in the parenting plan and now he's stuck.

Well, technically, he was getting 74% for a while...

 

[JennaDeeDooDah]

Oh after reading just part of this thread I'm glad we have a simple system here in Canada. If you make $x then you pay $y in support based on the number of kids. Plus a % of things like daycare that is a ratio based on both parents income. So if he makes $50000 and I make $100000. He pays 1/3 and I pay 2/3. No fighting over amounts or going back to court endlessly.

And to those who think someone receiving support should have to show that the money is spent on the children, remember this. My house, utilities, cable, Internet, and phone all are things partially for my kids. People use their cars (and gas and insurance) to drive their kids places. When I go out to eat so do my kids. When I buy furniture etc for my house that benefits my kids. Basically anything I pay for except for my clothes, hair cuts, and other personal expenses of mine, benefits my kids. So having to show that the support $ I receive is spent on my kids is the stupidist thing I have ever heard. I may go out an buy myself a new pair of shoes after I get my support payment but every expense incurred to provide for my kids comes right out of my account.

I'm going to have to politely disagree. Just because you kids might benefit from things doesn't mean that you should use child support payments for them. Let's take the electric bill, for example. Yes, your children do benefit from having the air conditioner on. However, on the days that they aren't with you, are still running your AC and your electric bill is still going up. If they weren't at your house, you would still be running your AC at the same temperature. Same goes for the couches. They aren't for your kids. They are for you. Sure, they might sit on them, but you didn't purchase them for your child. Now if you were to use child support to buy your child a new bed or a ceiling fan for his room, that is different.

 

[mamabear0222]

I'm going to have to politely disagree. Just because you kids might benefit from things doesn't mean that you should use child support payments for them. Let's take the electric bill, for example. Yes, your children do benefit from having the air conditioner on. However, on the days that they aren't with you, are still running your AC and your electric bill is still going up. If they weren't at your house, you would still be running your AC at the same temperature. Same goes for the couches. They aren't for your kids. They are for you. Sure, they might sit on them, but you didn't purchase them for your child. Now if you were to use child support to buy your child a new bed or a ceiling fan for his room, that is different.

I agree with this completely. I think many people have the same way of thinking as the PP sadly.

 

[JessB320]

Well, technically, he was getting 74% for a while...

True, but then she was technically getting 100% of one pie (her income, whatever that is ) and then 26% of the other pie ( his income) she will continue to get whatever her income is, and then will also get 76% of his.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

When you say it's the stupidest thing you have read....so it's right to have one person struggle to eat and have a roof over their heads while the other person is living in luxury taking vacations? This is what is wrong with humanity these days. Providing for your children is one thing. Living the life of reilly because of support payments while someone else suffers I do not agree with. (And before you say that is stupid too I am not saying you do this. I don't know you)


And just to be expand on this, if you never HAD kids, you'd still have your home expenses, car, gas, insurance, food, utilities, buying new furniture etc. Before I had kids, I still had these daily living expenses. With or without kids.

Sent from my Samsung S3 using DISBoards

Like some of the other posters, I'm from Canada, where child support is determined by a simple formula. If I made 50,000 a year and my ex made 20,000 a year, he would still have to pay the child support determined by the formula (based on his income). I think that is fair.

Yes, you have expenses if you don't have kids. But if you are just a single person, you could, for example, live in a studio apartment. Or a one-bedroom and have one bed. When you have kids, you need more space and more beds. More food. Maybe a bigger car, depending on the number of kids. More gas to drive them to activities. You may need to buy furniture more often because the kids damage it. And so on. Kids just add to the everyday expenses and that's how it is.

TP

 

[Tinker'n'Fun]

I'm going to have to politely disagree. Just because you kids might benefit from things doesn't mean that you should use child support payments for them. Let's take the electric bill, for example. Yes, your children do benefit from having the air conditioner on. However, on the days that they aren't with you, are still running your AC and your electric bill is still going up. If they weren't at your house, you would still be running your AC at the same temperature. Same goes for the couches. They aren't for your kids. They are for you. Sure, they might sit on them, but you didn't purchase them for your child. Now if you were to use child support to buy your child a new bed or a ceiling fan for his room, that is different.

I totally agree. What I could never understand (my DH has a son from a previous marriage) was that if they stayed married and he was unemployed or without insurance they would have done without or worked together. But when he was unemployed and owed child support they refused to reduce the amount. I personally took out loans to cover that expense.

Marriage is two people and so is divorce. Why should one person be doing okay and the other suffering? I could never do that to someone no matter what happened. You are not really keeping the best interest of the child if their parent is suffering.

And for the record my husband also paid more and finally capped his child support until he found out his son moved out of his mother's house at 18. He would have sent him the payment but my Stepson chose to remain absent from our family.

Divorce really does suck. I commend any two people who try to keep their children and the other party as whole as possible.

 

[wdwmom3]

When you say it's the stupidest thing you have read....so it's right to have one person struggle to eat and have a roof over their heads while the other person is living in luxury taking vacations? This is what is wrong with humanity these days. Providing for your children is one thing. Living the life of reilly because of support payments while someone else suffers I do not agree with. (And before you say that is stupid too I am not saying you do this. I don't know you)

And just to be expand on this, if you never HAD kids, you'd still have your home expenses, car, gas, insurance, food, utilities, buying new furniture etc. Before I had kids, I still had these daily living expenses. With or without kids.

Sent from my Samsung S3 using DISBoards

The way child support is calculated here in Canada it is based on the income of the person paying. They have taken into account low incomes. Someone making a low income does not have to pay support. I also have 2 other children that I receive 0 support for because my ex husband is on welfare. What my youngest son's father pays me is based on his income. After he pas support he still has enough to pay for the necessities. He could make more money and have more to spend on himself. But he doesn't. My increase in support would not be a huge % of any additional income. If he stops working the support he has to pay goes down. So really it's my responsibility to make sure my kids are taken care of.

So do I feel bad if he thinks money is tight? No I don't. Just because I have worked my but off all my life and been smart with my money does not mean he gets away with not supporting his son.

Each parent has a responsibility to provide financially for their children. Trust me I'm not living a luxery life and the things I have are not because of what he pays me. I would have the same things without his support. What I have is because of my hard work and my smart choices. Doesn't mean he can sit back and let me take care of everything.

 

[wdwmom3]

Oh and yes if I didn't have kids I would still have expenses but not the same as I have now. Just ask anyone with kids. They are expensive lol.

And I'm not saying that people should be paying tons in child support and allowing the custodial parent to "live" off that. I dont agree with that either. I believe both parents have a responsibility.

 

[wdwmom3]

I'm going to have to politely disagree. Just because you kids might benefit from things doesn't mean that you should use child support payments for them. Let's take the electric bill, for example. Yes, your children do benefit from having the air conditioner on. However, on the days that they aren't with you, are still running your AC and your electric bill is still going up. If they weren't at your house, you would still be running your AC at the same temperature. Same goes for the couches. They aren't for your kids. They are for you. Sure, they might sit on them, but you didn't purchase them for your child. Now if you were to use child support to buy your child a new bed or a ceiling fan for his room, that is different.

Ok so then I should not buy couches, tvs, or have a nice pleasant house for my children. Or a kitchen table and chairs for them to sit on or have a phone for them to talk to their friends, or computer to use, or tv for them to watch. Lmao.

Everything in my house is for my family as a whole. I don't think my kids would be too happy sitting on the floor lol.