Child support wage reporting.

[DisneyBamaFan]

Actually that is dependent on the state you are in, I believe. In the state I reside, according to various websites, the support order does include the "future needs of the child" (which can include college).

Thanks - As I said, I am not personally familiar with these things. I have never been in this situation, nor am I an attorney. I know that my friends have told me that they have it stipulated in their child support agreements that they pay 50% of all college tuition, books, fees, etc. One actually has to pay 100%. All of this on top of child support payments and health care coverage.

 

[Kathi OD]

The income is for the children not the spouse. Spousal support is a different animal. Given the cost of living in nj where I think this situation is occurring, $1800 is actually a decnt number not completely out of the norm. You figure child care is around $1200 a month for full time, housing another $1200 at least for a decent two bedroom, throw in food clothing medicine your right at $3600. Divide in half $1800.

This is assuming the parents make equal wages. If the mother sah with the child she is likely now makin much less then the husband so her portion of child expenses would be less.
I would be interested in seeing how much of the mothers income goes to providing for the child. Based on what i use to see in my law firm I would guess over 50%.

This figure shows how flawed your thinking is. Do you realize you are saying that someone would need to make over $43000/year to provide just the basic necessities for one child? Even in NJ, there are lots of families (which implies more than 1 person) who manage to get by on less than $43000/year, and that's before taxes.

Yup, this woman in Bama's story is just out to make life miserable for her ex. It's a shame that it's the child who is really going to suffer for her greediness.

I work with a guy who is going through something similar, although he never bailed. His kids were older when he and his ex split and believe me, they see through their mother's actions. They have lost all respect for her due to the way they have treated their dad. You know...what goes around, comes around...

 

[kaytieeldr]

Except the guy has choices. He can get a roommate. He can pick up extra shifts or a second job. Heck, he made the choice to have sex that created the child. The only one getting hurt by the father not paying the child support is the child.

The mother has those same choices.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I think that some of you read until you see something that you don't like and then start responding. Well, I can just about guarantee you all would feel as I do if you knew the man that I am talking about.

I am not saying that deadbeat parents should be sympathized with, but I am saying that the laws are set up in such a way that it is very difficult for many people to continue their lives in a way that any of us would be willing to accept once they have been named a non-custodial parent and asked to pay child support. From that day forward, your quality of life is considered secondary to the court order (not the child, but the court order) - even if the court order was poorly conceived from the outset.

The non-custodial parent is treated as a deadbeat from day one - with assumptions that the parent will not live up to the court order. I posted a link to the reality, but no one seems to care. It is as though everyone has an axe to grind. I just don't get it. How can you support a system that is so badly broken?

 

[cheermom1]

I think that some of you read until you see something that you don't like and then start responding. Well, I can just about guarantee you all would feel as I do if you knew the man that I am talking about.

I am not saying that deadbeat parents should be sympathized with, but I am saying that the laws are set up in such a way that it is very difficult for many people to continue their lives in a way that any of us would be willing to accept once they have been named a non-custodial parent and asked to pay child support. From that day forward, your quality of life is considered secondary to the court order (not the child, but the court order) - even if the court order was poorly conceived from the outset.

The non-custodial parent is treated as a deadbeat from day one - with assumptions that the parent will not live up to the court order. I posted a link to the reality, but no one seems to care. It is as though everyone has an axe to grind. I just don't get it. How can you support a system that is so badly broken?

I hear ya!! Really I do. One thing that I want to say is that my ex only had to pay $51 a week but I never took him back to get more, Why? B/c I knew that IF he ever wanted to see his kids that he would have the money to have a place for them, food and other things that goes into taking care of a child. I never wanted to take away his ability to provide for his kids while he had them.

My dh is a very generous man and he loves his kids so much. He just couldn't stand to see what the things their mom was doing to affect them and make them suffer. When someone tells you that your job is worthless and they are embarrassed that you have that job and therefore will keep your kids from you b/c of said job, but all the while trying to get as much money as they can, that is not a reasonable person. That is the kids of people we are talking about.And yes my dh's ex did do that to him. He had to take her to court yet again. That adds up to a lot of money that he doesn't have. It is a never ending circle.

These are the things that some of you are missing.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Well, I will only add that child support isn't for current expenses only. It is for future expenses too.
I paid $58,000 in college tuition last year for my 2 kids. In my son's case, his tuition so far.....he's still in college, has hit a total $200,000. Throw in the 13 years of tuition for private Kindergarten thru 12th grade, at $10,000 a year, I've spent $330,000 on tution alone on him, without buying a single meal or piece of clothing. So a total of $367,000 for one child is NOTHING over 17 years.

True, and I did consider that.

But there is a problem.

It would require court order for her to actually save part of that $1800 for college.

In some states, dad has to pay for college on top of that (or it can be included in the decree at least.

So this assumes just up to age 18.

If the child wasn't in private school before hand, it isn't fair to require dad to pay for it after.

I have 4 kids. Take out college and I don't spend $1800 a month. Well, if you include the insane activities, it gets close. But kids don't have to do as much as my kids do. My husband would prefer that my kids not do as much as they do.

For 1 child, it is ridiculous when looking at just raising them through public high school.

 

[cheermom1]

True, and I did consider that.

But there is a problem.

It would require court order for her to actually save part of that $1800 for college.

In some states, dad has to pay for college on top of that (or it can be included in the decree at least.

So this assumes just up to age 18.

If the child wasn't in private school before hand, it isn't fair to require dad to pay for it after.

I have 4 kids. Take out college and I don't spend $1800 a month. Well, if you include the insane activities, it gets close. But kids don't have to do as much as my kids do. My husband would prefer that my kids not do as much as they do.

For 1 child, it is ridiculous when looking at just raising them through public high school.

I agree. College is not a basic need to raise a child. In an intact home the father is not required nor forced to pay for college like divorced fathers are, That just does not seem fair. College is a privilege not a right.

If the CS is built to cover other costs then basic needs then it should be ordered that so much of that CS should go toward that. Also Basic needs of a child is not including activities the child wants to do b/c that is a privilege not a right. Cs IS just that BASIC needs of the child it was never meant for anything else.

Thanks Lisa

 

[tasha99]

I agree. College is not a basic need to raise a child. In an intact home the father is not required nor forced to pay for college like divorced fathers are, That just does not seem fair. College is a privilege not a right.

If the CS is built to cover other costs then basic needs then it should be ordered that so much of that CS should go toward that. Also Basic needs of a child is not including activities the child wants to do b/c that is a privilege not a right. Cs IS just that BASIC needs of the child it was never meant for anything else.

Thanks Lisa

I don't believe the bolded can be true. Othewise, child support would be a set amount based on location, and millionaires wouldn't have to pay more than factory workers.

 

[cheermom1]

I don't believe the bolded can be true. Othewise, child support would be a set amount based on location, and millionaires wouldn't have to pay more than factory workers.

Really seriously??? The only reason CS various is b/c of how money is being made. Which is where I think CS is flawed. This is MY opinion. Yes it is based on income however do you really think that CS was meant to pay for things once the child reached an adult??? If you do than that is just sad. B/c anything a parent gives to their adult kid is a gift. It should always be vi3wed as that a gift one children reach an adult. And as I said college is a privilege not a right. As ion anything that a parent gives an adult child is a privilege not a right. Excluding disabled child and other circumstances of course.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I don't believe the bolded can be true. Othewise, child support would be a set amount based on location, and millionaires wouldn't have to pay more than factory workers.

I believe that child support should support some part of a lifestyle. It isn't supposed to be hitting the jackpot and creating a lifestyle that didn't exist before, nor should the child be "punished" and live a poor lifestyle either.

This is why millionaires pay more--they had children in wealth, as long as they maintain their wealth, then they can and should pay significantly more than a factory worker.

The firefighter in this scenario likely did not spend $21,000 on that child while married. One would assume that a home would be required whether or not the mom had a child. At best, the child support might cover the added expense of an additional bedroom. But there is no way that child is going to require over $1000 in extras just to live.

It is possible that this mother doesn't spend $1800 on that child in a month. It is possible that she saw at least some of it to be her spending money for luxuries.

Child support isn't for that. And I have a strong idea that DisneyBamaFan witnessed some of that and hence why he has strong opinions regarding it.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Really seriously??? The only reason CS various is b/c of how money is being made. Which is where I think CS is flawed. This is MY opinion. Yes it is based on income however do you really think that CS was meant to pay for things once the child reached an adult??? If you do than that is just sad. B/c anything a parent gives to their adult kid is a gift. It should always be vi3wed as that a gift one children reach an adult. And as I said college is a privilege not a right. As ion anything that a parent gives an adult child is a privilege not a right. Excluding disabled child and other circumstances of course.

In fairness, if the family planned to send the child to college when they were still married, I do feel the parent should be called on it in the divorce proceedings. (just another thought not directed at anyone I knew or heard about.)

 

[cheermom1]

In fairness, if the family planned to send the child to college when they were still married, I do feel the parent should be called on it in the divorce proceedings. (just another thought not directed at anyone I knew or heard about.)

I can agree with that however I still stick to collage is a privilege not a right. And that is where a lot of people get stuck on. I know my dh's ex did and they never talked about college while they were together. She just assumed that she was or the kids were entitled to dh paying for all of it for each boy. She did not win.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

In fairness, if the family planned to send the child to college when they were still married, I do feel the parent should be called on it in the divorce proceedings. (just another thought not directed at anyone I knew or heard about.)

Getting a divorce is the worst thing that one can do to one's finances. Because you can afford it today does not mean that you will be able to afford it tomorrow. So, plans should not impact something like this. The ability to do it and still live a normal life, save for retirement, etc. should be weighed.

 

[sparklynails23]

I think that some of you read until you see something that you don't like and then start responding. Well, I can just about guarantee you all would feel as I do if you knew the man that I am talking about.

I am not saying that deadbeat parents should be sympathized with, but I am saying that the laws are set up in such a way that it is very difficult for many people to continue their lives in a way that any of us would be willing to accept once they have been named a non-custodial parent and asked to pay child support. From that day forward, your quality of life is considered secondary to the court order (not the child, but the court order) - even if the court order was poorly conceived from the outset.

The non-custodial parent is treated as a deadbeat from day one - with assumptions that the parent will not live up to the court order. I posted a link to the reality, but no one seems to care. It is as though everyone has an axe to grind. I just don't get it. How can you support a system that is so badly broken?

I just find your story to be a little unbelievable or one-sided. First you stated the wife of the fire fighter ended up with nothing, then you said that your friend sends untraceable checks (not as easy to do as you might think, maybe he's sending cash in the mail). Then you say you're worried he's dead (but he's still paying child support). At one point you say he invested tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys to fight the child support rulings, but that's kind of silly if he's only going to get that reduced by a few hundred a month.

Then you make snide remarks and personally attack some posters, because we all don't agree with you. End result? People still don't agree with you.

You post a paragraph but not a reference, or am I just missing the "link?"

It's not personal, I just don't agree with you and find your posts a bit scattered and doubtful. Sorry.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I just find your story to be a little unbelievable or one-sided...

LOL - of course you do. It is a lot more convenient to disbelieve than to back up your view point.

 

[tomthebarncat]

You know what a common theme I see for those people who are posting stories about why it is okay for a man to walk on his kid?
It got to be too "hard". Too hard emotionally, too hard financially, just too hard. But, please correct me if I am wrong, isn't being a parent HARD? Isn't it a hard and messy job? Isn't it (at times) a thankless job that saps all your strength and energy? So, dismissing your responsibility as a parent because it is "too hard" (financially or emotionally) is a cop-out.
I guess I simply see these fathers as sperm donors, not parents-because a parent wouldn't abandoned their kid when the going got tough.

Sometimes in life, the right thing and the hard thing, are the same thing! One divorces spouses not children! As far as I am concerned any "Man" that would walk away from his children, such as the cases presented in this thread, loses the right to be called a man, he is now a coward! there is always a solution if one is willing to work hard enough to find it!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

... there is always a solution if one is willing to work hard enough to find it!

Well, maybe in your world, but in my world there are not always solutions to life's problems.

 

[tomthebarncat]

Well, maybe in your world, but in my world there are not always solutions to life's problems.

You appear to be a very negative person from your postings, I truly hope that I am wrong, but I am an analytical thinker and problem solver , and a positive attitude person! Happy Holidays to you and your family!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

You appear to be a very negative person from your postings, I truly hope that I am wrong, but I am an analytical thinker and problem solver , and a positive attitude person! Happy Holidays to you and your family!

What postings are negative? That is an odd thing to say, especially in a thread in which I am one of those trying to get the people who automatically think the worst of people to try and see the other side of the story.

My friends and family consider me to be a very positive person - sometimes obnoxiously so. I don't mind that a stranger thinks otherwise. Maybe I should consider how I am posting that would make you think so.

At any rate, Merry Christmas to you, too.

 

[nathalee81]

Well, maybe in your world, but in my world there are not always solutions to life's problems.

What postings are negative? That is an odd thing to say, especially in a thread in which I am one of those trying to get the people who automatically think the worst of people to try and see the other side of the story.

I'm sorry but I am confused. You say you are an "obnoxiously positive" person, but you find it difficult to find "solutions to life's problems"?
Usually positive people can see that there are ways to getting things in life if you want them enough. It is just all about how much you want to do to get them.

Also, we aren't automatically supposed to think the worst of your friend, but we are supposed to think the worst of the mother? That is what you are asking, right? You aren't asking us to see both sides of the story, you are asking us just to see one side-your friend's.

I think that some of you read until you see something that you don't like and then start responding. Well, I can just about guarantee you all would feel as I do if you knew the man that I am talking about.

Trust me, I wouldn't.

[/QUOTE]The non-custodial parent is treated as a deadbeat from day one - with assumptions that the parent will not live up to the court order. I posted a link to the reality, but no one seems to care. It is as though everyone has an axe to grind. I just don't get it. How can you support a system that is so badly broken?[/QUOTE]

I did see your link. I am very weary of its source. I'm always skeptical of statistics and such, because with a little research on google I could find a ton of other statistics from a ton of other sources directly contradicting your article. Where are the statistics from? Who supports the organization garnering the statistics? I could go and do some research, but alas, it is late and I am tired. Maybe tomorrow, if the Christmas rush doesn't set in-I will get back to you .

Sure it is hard...

However, that doesn't give the mom the right to inflict emotional abuse.

Never said that it gave the mom the right to inflict emotional abuse, it just doesn't give the dad the right to flee. In fact, I don't understand why, as a parent, you would want your kid to stay with someone like that. Wouldn't it make you fight harder for your kid? Why would you want to leave your kid with a person who is emotionally abusive?
And, yes, I remember the story from Sunday school. It was actually a king, not a judge. But, I'm sorry did I miss the post where they said they were gonna split the kid in half? That would be a new development in the story.