child support question

[cabanafrau]

Sorry, but feeding them pizza and not finding trustworthy child support are on different ends of the spectrum. If he doesn't find trustworthy child care, the child could be put in danger. A bit different, don't you think? The point in this particular situation should be to find the best care for the child.

Paying for the child care that she finds would fill his responsibility and make it so that she could use the child care that she is already having to use.

You know, until you actually live a situation, you can make assumption of how it "should" be but you really don't understand. But when you live it, you understand that it can't always be the way someone wants it to be. You can say all day long that it should be "this" way or "that" way. But in real life with real people and real situations, it can't always be your ideal way.

My situation and this one are different and I won't go into what is happening now as I will just be accused of downing the poor little single mom and we won't go there; but it sounds like in the OP's situation the mom is trying to work and support her child. And the two parents need to figure out how they can do this and not put the mom in a bind when she is working. Either together or through the court systems.

And again, if it was me; I would apply for govt. assistance to pay for child care and put the child with someone who can keep her every night that she works. He could then take the child to and from that sitter during his time to have her. If this can be solved without using the court system, it is much easier.

It's easier and preferable to settle this without involving the court system, but seeking public assistance to pay for the childcare is more appropriate than requiring parents to support their children as they should?

 

[tmarquez]

I don't know what state they are in or what the divorce says exactly. So this is a guess.

Since the divorce is relatively recent, it probably orders "shared parental responsibility" with "primary residential responsibilty" going to the mom. It also obviously addresses visitation.

The mom can modify her divorce asking the court for additional support due to a change in circumstances (the change being the father not able to keep his visitation schedule). Was she always a bartender or is she making less money now? Since the fathers employer is calling him into work, is he now required to do overtime? If so, the child support guidelines need to be redone anyway.

Also, she can file for a modification herself or through her local child support office...she doesn't need an attorney.

 

[luvsJack]

You missed the point entirely. I wasn't comparing eating pizza and childcare but like the pp said, even things like that are sometimes settled in court. The ex is perfectly capable of addressing those concerns with the courts if needed, however that isn't the reason for this discussion. The reason for this thread is that the dad is flaking out on his responsibilities.
The point was that the child is the dad's responsibility during his time, its his responsibility to make childcare arrangements, not just spring it on the ex. Much like the point being made about your own situation..............
The OP's friend needs to do what she can to make sure he steps up, and that just may be getting sole custody.
(But as I have said, if she already has it, her hands are tied).

OT: Well, like most people you missed the point in my thread, because he wasn't flaking out on anything or springing anything on her. It was HER springing things on people that actually have jobs and responsibilities.



BOT: IF the OP's friend gets sole custody, how is that going to change anything? He very well may still get visitation and he may very well still flake out on her. Having full custody does not necessarily equal not allowing the other parent to see the child.

She needs help in fixing the situation. The guy is wrong for not letting her know when he can't take the child when he knows she has to work. I am not saying this guy is right in what he is doing. Not by a long shot. I have BTDT many times with my own ex.

She needs this job, I am assuming. And I would think that the main point is that she needs to know that her child will be taken care of while she works. Regardless of what anyone wishes the thread to be about, I would assume the thing the OP wants to do is help her friend with this situation.

The best thing to do is figure out how to continue working and continue to know that her child is cared for. If changing the custody agreement (even IF the court system will and that's not exactly a given here.) will do that, so be it. If having the court change the support amount to include X$ for child care, then that is what she needs to do. If there is a solution that does not involve the court system, then maybe she should try that.

NONE of this is going to make the guy step up. Regardless of what you think someone should do, you can't make them do it. You can shout it to the roof tops and its not going to change a blessed thing.

OP, does the father work? What does he normally do for child care during the time he has the child?

 

[luvsJack]

It's easier and preferable to settle this without involving the court system, but seeking public assistance to pay for the childcare is more appropriate than requiring parents to support their children as they should?

No, but I would do that before I would let someone that I may not trust to pick my child's child care.

If the courts will make him pay for the child care then that would be preferable.

It doesn't sound like she makes a great deal of money, nor does it sound like he pays a great deal of support. There will also be the question of whether it is realistic to think that he can pay more in support to cover the cost of child care.

 

[ez]

I just wanted to add that if your friends child has an autism diagnosis and your friend makes very little income she can probably collect money from social security on behalf of her child. I think it is around 600 a month. My son is autistic and I know we wouldnt qualify, but Ive heard of many families in our community who are getting this. Something worth checking into.

 

[cabanafrau]

OT: Well, like most people you missed the point in my thread, because he wasn't flaking out on anything or springing anything on her. It was HER springing things on people that actually have jobs and responsibilities.



BOT: IF the OP's friend gets sole custody, how is that going to change anything? He very well may still get visitation and he may very well still flake out on her. Having full custody does not necessarily equal not allowing the other parent to see the child.

She needs help in fixing the situation. The guy is wrong for not letting her know when he can't take the child when he knows she has to work. I am not saying this guy is right in what he is doing. Not by a long shot. I have BTDT many times with my own ex.

She needs this job, I am assuming. And I would think that the main point is that she needs to know that her child will be taken care of while she works. Regardless of what anyone wishes the thread to be about, I would assume the thing the OP wants to do is help her friend with this situation.

The best thing to do is figure out how to continue working and continue to know that her child is cared for. If changing the custody agreement (even IF the court system will and that's not exactly a given here.) will do that, so be it. If having the court change the support amount to include X$ for child care, then that is what she needs to do. If there is a solution that does not involve the court system, then maybe she should try that.

NONE of this is going to make the guy step up. Regardless of what you think someone should do, you can't make them do it. You can shout it to the roof tops and its not going to change a blessed thing.

OP, does the father work? What does he normally do for child care during the time he has the child?

No, the courts cannot make deadbeat parents step up. However spelling things out in a court order can compel some compliance in certain situations. It also helps to lay down a paper trail in case further court involvement is necessary. Court orders and corroborating documentation of actions lead to more productive solutions than an endless he said/she said with non-cooperating parents. When it reaches the point where the court has to assign legal custody to one parent and the scheduled parenting time associated with the joint physical is essentially simply a "visit" with the non-custodial parent you generally expect there to be associated discussion regarding whether the non-custodial parent actually is expected to be there for the visitation, or if the grandparents can pick up the child(ren) and return them to the custodial parent for the visitation time. You know it's seriously messed up when the court has to reach the point of ordering that the non-custodial parent must be present for the exchange and is required to be there for the visitation time. Grandma and Grandpa are usually the ones spitting nails or sobbing in those cases.

Unless the parties can agreeably work together, it's usually the deadbeats and slackers who prefer to keep the courts out of it, knowing they can keep running their scams and relying on friends and family to continue enabling their evasion of responsibility.

 

[luvmy3]

OT: Well, like most people you missed the point in my thread, because he wasn't flaking out on anything or springing anything on her. It was HER springing things on people that actually have jobs and responsibilities.



BOT: IF the OP's friend gets sole custody, how is that going to change anything? He very well may still get visitation and he may very well still flake out on her. Having full custody does not necessarily equal not allowing the other parent to see the child.

She needs help in fixing the situation. The guy is wrong for not letting her know when he can't take the child when he knows she has to work. I am not saying this guy is right in what he is doing. Not by a long shot. I have BTDT many times with my own ex.

She needs this job, I am assuming. And I would think that the main point is that she needs to know that her child will be taken care of while she works. Regardless of what anyone wishes the thread to be about, I would assume the thing the OP wants to do is help her friend with this situation.

The best thing to do is figure out how to continue working and continue to know that her child is cared for. If changing the custody agreement (even IF the court system will and that's not exactly a given here.) will do that, so be it. If having the court change the support amount to include X$ for child care, then that is what she needs to do. If there is a solution that does not involve the court system, then maybe she should try that.

NONE of this is going to make the guy step up. Regardless of what you think someone should do, you can't make them do it. You can shout it to the roof tops and its not going to change a blessed thing.

OP, does the father work? What does he normally do for child care during the time he has the child?

Maybe I remember your thread differently, but I do recall an issue with your ds having his kid(s) on the weekends as per their arrangement. The ex had plans and you couldn't babysit and your ds wasn't trying to make other arrangements for that weekend, it was being left up to the ex. I admit that I may be forgetting something, but I'm pretty sure my memory is close because the point of stepping up came up many many times in that thread. I do hope things are working out better for them.

As far as this situation, the OP said her friend was thinking about going back to court to ask for full custody and more support. None of us know what is going to make this dad step up, including you. We are all just offering our opinions/advice to the OP.

 

[cabanafrau]

No, but I would do that before I would let someone that I may not trust to pick my child's child care.

If the courts will make him pay for the child care then that would be preferable.

It doesn't sound like she makes a great deal of money, nor does it sound like he pays a great deal of support. There will also be the question of whether it is realistic to think that he can pay more in support to cover the cost of child care.

It's a cost of being a parent.

Why is it that people will get behind the notion parents should leave their children to support themselves and put themselves through college because they are 18, yet be expected to subsidize childcare for the children of others?

 

[luvmy3]

It's a cost of being a parent.

Why is it that people will get behind the notion parents should leave their children to support themselves and put themselves through college because they are 18, yet be expected to subsidize childcare for the children of others?

I cant get past the notion that one would go on public assistance and have others "support" their child, than be willing to take the person who should be responsible to court Way to perpetuate the idea that its okay to not step up, someone else will just be forced to do it for you attitude

 

[luvsJack]

No, the courts cannot make deadbeat parents step up. However spelling things out in a court order can compel some compliance in certain situations. It also helps to lay down a paper trail in case further court involvement is necessary. Court orders and corroborating documentation of actions lead to more productive solutions than an endless he said/she said with non-cooperating parents. When it reaches the point where the court has to assign legal custody to one parent and the scheduled parenting time associated with the joint physical is essentially simply a "visit" with the non-custodial parent you generally expect there to be associated discussion regarding whether the non-custodial parent actually is expected to be there for the visitation, or if the grandparents can pick up the child(ren) and return them to the custodial parent for the visitation time. You know it's seriously messed up when the court has to reach the point of ordering that the non-custodial parent must be present for the exchange and is required to be their for the visitation time. Grandma and Grandpa are usually the ones spitting nails or sobbing in those cases.

Unless the parties can agreeably work together, it's usually the deadbeats and slackers who prefer to keep the courts out of it, knowing they can keep running their scams and relying on friends and family to continue enabling their evasion of responsibility.

Funny you mention the whole non-custodial parent not being there for visitation. That was actually brought up in court by my ex. He wanted the kids to go to his house while he was offshore. The judge laughed.

Anyway, back on topic: My original suggestion was that she ask the courts for additional support to pay for child care. The pp asked why it should not be on her to find that child care. I simply said that it would be dependent on him finding suitable care. If the courts can state that he has to agree to use whatever child care she finds suitable, then that is different than just letting it be "on him".

And of course, there is the question of if he can afford to pay more money. That was why I made the suggestion of the government assistance.

 

[luvsJack]

I cant get past the notion that one would go on public assistance and have others "support" their child, than be willing to take the person who should be responsible to court Way to perpetuate the idea that its okay to not step up, someone else will just be forced to do it for you attitude

No, its not ok to not step up but I have enough sense to know that you can't get blood out of a turnip.

It depends on how much money the man makes. Child support isn't going to come to an amount more than he makes.

If he makes the money and can pay more--he should pay it. If he makes enough money and doesn't pay it, that same organization will make him pay it. If he doesn't make enough money to pay more child support, then assistance would help her.

And FYI--the parents have to have jobs to get this assistance. So no one is supporting anyone, it pays a portion of child care and the parent(s) pay a co-pay.

 

[luvsJack]

Maybe I remember your thread differently, but I do recall an issue with your ds having his kid(s) on the weekends as per their arrangement. The ex had plans and you couldn't babysit and your ds wasn't trying to make other arrangements for that weekend, it was being left up to the ex. I admit that I may be forgetting something, but I'm pretty sure my memory is close because the point of stepping up came up many many times in that thread. I do hope things are working out better for them.

As far as this situation, the OP said her friend was thinking about going back to court to ask for full custody and more support. None of us know what is going to make this dad step up, including you. We are all just offering our opinions/advice to the OP.

Their agreement was not "on the weekends" their agreement was "when he is not at work". Very different but not something that was comprehended obviously.

I realize what is happening. And no I don't know what will make this dad step up. NOTHING may make him step up. That was my point. She needs her job and she needs child care. Her best bet is to do it however she needs to with or without his help.

 

[cabanafrau]

No, its not ok to not step up but I have enough sense to know that you can't get blood out of a turnip.

It depends on how much money the man makes. Child support isn't going to come to an amount more than he makes.

If he makes the money and can pay more--he should pay it. If he makes enough money and doesn't pay it, that same organization will make him pay it. If he doesn't make enough money to pay more child support, then assistance would help her.

And FYI--the parents have to have jobs to get this assistance. So no one is supporting anyone, it pays a portion of child care and the parent(s) pay a co-pay.

If you can't get blood from a turnip, how is it possible for the parents to pay a co-pay and the assistance to pay the portion of the childcare if no one is supporting the assistance? Math may not be my strength, but I can't make that add up.

 

[Tinker'n'Fun]

No, its not ok to not step up but I have enough sense to know that you can't get blood out of a turnip.

It depends on how much money the man makes. Child support isn't going to come to an amount more than he makes.

If he makes the money and can pay more--he should pay it. If he makes enough money and doesn't pay it, that same organization will make him pay it. If he doesn't make enough money to pay more child support, then assistance would help her.

And FYI--the parents have to have jobs to get this assistance. So no one is supporting anyone, it pays a portion of child care and the parent(s) pay a co-pay.

Based on a sliding scale here, so even those with an income that is considered enough would still qualify. So I don't see a problem with getting the child in a set daycare situation that the both parents are responsible. If Dad can't take the child during his time he knows what the cost will be. It would be set the same for every day. Plus I would have her get it written in the daycare contract so they would bill the Father directly.

 

[luvsJack]

It's a cost of being a parent.

Why is it that people will get behind the notion parents should leave their children to support themselves and put themselves through college because they are 18, yet be expected to subsidize childcare for the children of others?

I don't even know what in the world you are talking about on the whole college thing.

Again, the child care assistance is there for people who need it. Its one of the few government programs that actually encourages people to work. If she only ends up with $300 to live on, she NEEDS it!

If her ex can pay the child care he SHOULD! I never said he shouldn't. The only thing I ever said was that it is an option. And I said that if he can be made to pay for child care during the time he is supposed to have the child, that might be a better route than making him responsible for finding child care himself--unless she totally trusts his judgement.

 

[luvsJack]

If you can't get blood from a turnip, how is it possible for the parents to pay a co-pay and the assistance to pay the portion of the childcare if no one is supporting the assistance? Math may not be my strength, but I can't make that add up.

What?

Child care is $150 a week, a co-pay would be $20 a week, the government program would pay $130. (just throwing out numbers there if the child was in full time care).

What are you trying to add up?

The blood from the turnip would be money from the ex if he doesn't have it.

 

[tiggger1]

sorry I had to volunteer at my daughter school.

here is a little more information. my friend has primary custody. the ex has her for 48 hours (15 of those are when she is in school) He has 2 jobs but is not supposed to work the 2 days he has her. the custody papers says he has her from 7am wed-7am friday and he is supposed to arrange for childcare if he cannot watch her. during the past 6 weeks he should have had his dd for 288 hours. he missed 144 hours! that is half the time he should have had her!!!

 

[luvsJack]

sorry I had to volunteer at my daughter school.

here is a little more information. my friend has primary custody. the ex has her for 48 hours (15 of those are when she is in school) He has 2 jobs but is not supposed to work the 2 days he has her. the custody papers says he has her from 7am wed-7am friday and he is supposed to arrange for childcare if he cannot watch her. during the past 6 weeks he should have had his dd for 288 hours. he missed 144 hours! that is half the time he should have had her!!!

OK. Well, then she needs to take him back to court and push the issue of him arranging for child care or paying for care during the time he is supposed to have her. She should definitely let the court know how much time he has missed so that they see the need for her to have some arrangement of care that she can count on.

 

[luvsJack]

You say this:
And of course, there is the question of if he can afford to pay more money. That was why I made the suggestion of the government assistance.

But you said this:
And again, if it was me; I would apply for govt. assistance to pay for child care and put the child with someone who can keep her every night that she works. He could then take the child to and from that sitter during his time to have her. If this can be solved without using the court system, it is much easier.

and this:
No, but I would do that before I would let someone that I may not trust to pick my child's child care.

So, is it about what is easier, or going on assistance instead of letting him pick childcare or is it just based on his income? It seems like your reasons are all over the place but regardless of which one it is, I still think its wrong to have tax payers take up the slack without first trying to at least go after the should be responsible party.
And regardless of whether or not those parents have jobs, public assistance is being funded with public tax dollars

Because it was not clear whether the man would be willing or able to pay any additional amount. It would easier to get the assistance than to spend every waking moment trying to MAKE him pay something he either can't or won't pay.

And you are correct I would do that before I let someone pick child care for my child unless I knew I could trust their judgement. If the courts said that he would be the one choosing the child care because he is paying for it, that would be a concern to me.

So, if the mother can't afford to pay for child care and the father can't afford to pay more than whatever child support he is paying--what exactly do you purpose the mother do? Quit her job and stay home and go completely on assistance? Quit her job and starve? Leave the child alone? I am always interested in the choices others thing those on any kind of assistance should make.

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

She needs to go to the court, explain what is going on and any concerns she has. That way there is a paper trail as things continue to deteriorate.

I'm sure it does stink having someone else (the courts) in your business, controlling aspects of your life. But in cases like this, an ounce of prevention could be worth a pound of cure.