Child support wage reporting.

[cheermom1]

Yep - they do - but the fight isn't fair and the deck is stacked against them - just as the child support laws are draconian and ill conceived, so are the child custody laws. When facing divorce, every father that I know fought for custody. Only one won, and that was because the mother had been reported to child protective services for beating the children multiple times (the cause of the divorce). The rest all lost. Child custody laws are sexist and women would march in the streets if the shoe were on the other foot.

Yes bamma I know a dad that did just that and he lost. The reason he took her to court to get them was b/c she was on drugs and she was even in jail for drugs (meth) and the judge still refused to give him custody.

 

[jen0610]

I never said the support of the child was solely up to the father. Nope never did. I have engaged in sex with my husband not intended to create a child. Guess what we used this wonderful thing called birth control. If we really are concerned, we would even double up on the birth control.

As for visitation and roommates, no one said visitation has to be overnight. A day at the park, zoo, etc. Pick the child up for breakfast, spend the day with him or her. I have a friend whose ex-husband actually does his visitation in hotels because he lives in a studio apartment. Ideal, no, but he sees his kids.

You don't know why the mother doesn't use the health insurance. Maybe she also carries insurance on the children and that pays the bills.

If she wants to get her own insurance that is fine, BUT LET HIM DROP HAVING TO COVER THEM. He HAS to provide it - it's court ordered. He asked to have that dropped when they were at court - she said that they may need it, so the judge didn't let him drop it. In the 5 years that he has worked here - our insurance has paid out ZERO in claims. Even if she did have another primary insurance, his still should have been used as a secondary insurer. If he could drop coverage for those kids, it would save him almost $100.00 a month.

In the case of my one friend, she lives here in IN. She and the ex use to live in CA, he still does. The insurance he can get for their son is of no use to us here. We don't have Keiser(?) around here. So instead of him carring the court ordered insurance, they had it modified when she moved back to IN and he pays her what it cost her for putting their son on her company insurance. It's a win-win for both of them.

 

[mamacatnv]

Yep - they do - but the fight isn't fair and the deck is stacked against them - just as the child support laws are draconian and ill conceived, so are the child custody laws. When facing divorce, every father that I know fought for custody. Only one won, and that was because the mother had been reported to child protective services for beating the children multiple times (the cause of the divorce). The rest all lost. Child custody laws are sexist and women would march in the streets if the shoe were on the other foot.

The majority of my garnished parents never fought for custody. Perhaps it is the nature of my work force, the nature of my geographical location, or just the way things worked out. 3/4 of them were never married to the other half and the majority of them have had additional children with the new significant other.

I do agree to a point that the courts lean towards the mother, but I also see a lot of 50/50 arrangements. Those take sacrifice on both sides and what I often see is that by the time the marriage or arrangement dissolves neither party is in the compromising mode they are in the angry mode and sadly, that is when the kids just don't win.

Oh and I wanted to add - the majority of the time when I see support garnishments that approach 50-55% of the take home pay (the law reads it is the take home not the gross) it is usually the result of owing back support combined with a current support order.

 

[ctinct]

Won't get blasted by me. I see plenty of folks at work who are forced to live at close to 40 years old with their parents because of child support.

Around here, not only does the guy pay child support, but he is also the one who has to pay for the medical benefits, school clothes, extra-curricular after school stuff, just about everything extra.

The 40% of 54,000 being $1800. That would be 40% before taxes. Take the $54k and figure out 70% take home pay from that. Now we are looking at $3150/month. Subtract the child support, the guy is left with $1350. If it takes $1800/month to house, feed, and keep warm a child, how is the guy suppose to house, feed, and keep warm himself on only $1350, along with subtracting the school clothes, doctor visits, after school activities and all the other extras from that $1350 and where exactly does that leave the dad? The answer is, it leaves him homeless.

Just want to point out that no one said this particular father made $54000. That figure was thrown out there by another poster as a "what-if." In my neck of the woods, a firefighter's beginning base pay is around this figure, so I am guessing this person was making considerably more.

 

[cheermom1]

This is an example of why some men walk. I know that it may not be the mojority but this is what I was talking about when I said it was not just about money why a dad would walk.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Honestly I don't know what to think of this or how to support him, his exw is threatening all this stuff against him and is trying to build up another abuse case. I understand where he is coming from, his son will not even call him dad anymore and we have talked to cps and lawyers and such pretty much we can get more time with him but we have no control of what she does. It makes me really really sad, I have watched this guy that I love cry for days over this, everytime his son's name or anything concerning him is brought up he tears up, and honestly I want to kill her right now. I don't agree with him walking out on his son, but everytime we have this kid the police are at our house and shortly after some thing comes up with her freaking out, or with an investigator calling us. I'm just at a loss right now, it's not good for his son to go through everything that he is. I agree with that, the poor kid has to be stripped down and checked out everytime we drop him off at the drop because she always tries to find every scratch or every bruise, he is being checked out by doctors, dfs and police everytime she thinks she has enough evidence of abuse (which always falls through) I know for a fact he loves his son, and I care for his son, but where does it stop? She won't let him talk to him at all and when we do have him, his son makes it clear he is uncomfortable and doesn't want to be here. btw his kiddo is only 3 and all of this is coming up. I am really desperate him giving his kid up goes against all of my morals but I can understand his point I just worry he will live everyday to regret it.

 

[mrodgers]

Just want to point out that no one said this particular father made $54000. That figure was thrown out there by another poster as a "what-if." In my neck of the woods, a firefighter's beginning base pay is around this figure, so I am guessing this person was making considerably more.

It was said, and I had thought this was true as well, that child support is typically 40% of income. $1800 is 40% of $54,000.

 

[nathalee81]

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.

 

[GAGirlInVA]

It was said, and I had thought this was true as well, that child support is typically 40% of income. $1800 is 40% of $54,000.

HA! I get 11% of his 2002 wage.

 

[ctinct]

It was said, and I had thought this was true as well, that child support is typically 40% of income. $1800 is 40% of $54,000.

I can't speak to NJ, but in my state, that is not the case. My ex was making over this figure when child support was set, and his share of the child support was less than half of $1800. I believe it was set up by percentages; because he was the higher earning spouse, his percentage was higher than what I was expected to provide. It's pretty cut and dried; the state provides a guidebook online. I imagine other states have their own methods, but that 40% of income seems pretty high to me. Maybe he was ordered to pay 40% of the child's support? Although if his wife made way less than he did, he would be expected to provide more than 40% of support, I would think. The numbers in this case seem a bit off to me. Maybe the op is giving a figure for child support and alimony together.


ETA: AAArrrggg. The columns are off here, but the first column is for 1 child. In CT, the NET pay is used. I posted the high end first, then the low end. There are some cases where the support is over 50% of income, but that is for a low income person with 6 kids. The actual percentage of the net pay decreases as the pay goes up, although the amount paid naturally increases. However, in CT, even a person who brings home $4000 a week pays less than $2000 a month in child support.

Dang---I noticed the lower income side did not post---I posted the same page twice. In any case, it's easy to Google. If NJ is similar to CT, the guy was making some serious money. CT also has provisions for how much ot counts, etc. That said, I simply do not understand why a judge would not adjust downward when income changes, just as they have the authority to raise the amount when income rises. OTOH, we are only getting one side of the story, and seconhand at that.


Child 2 Children 3 Children 4 Children 5 Children 6 Children
Combined
Net
Weekly
Income % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $
3500 12.60% 441 16.81% 588 18.25% 639 20.35% 712 22.38% 783 24.35% 852
3510 12.58% 442 16.79% 589 18.22% 640 20.32% 713 22.35% 784 24.32% 853
3520 12.57% 442 16.77% 590 18.20% 641 20.29% 714 22.32% 786 24.28% 855
3530 12.55% 443 16.75% 591 18.17% 642 20.26% 715 22.29% 787 24.25% 856
3540 12.53% 444 16.73% 592 18.15% 642 20.24% 716 22.26% 788 24.22% 857
3550 12.51% 444 16.71% 593 18.12% 643 20.21% 717 22.23% 789 24.19% 859
3560 12.50% 445 16.69% 594 18.10% 644 20.18% 718 22.20% 790 24.15% 860
3570 12.48% 446 16.67% 595 18.08% 645 20.15% 720 22.17% 791 24.12% 861
3580 12.46% 446 16.65% 596 18.05% 646 20.13% 721 22.14% 793 24.09% 862
3590 12.45% 447 16.63% 597 18.03% 647 20.10% 722 22.11% 794 24.06% 864
3600 12.43% 447 16.61% 598 18.00% 648 20.08% 723 22.08% 795 24.03% 865
3610 12.41% 448 16.59% 599 17.98% 649 20.05% 724 22.05% 796 23.99% 866
3620 12.40% 449 16.57% 600 17.96% 650 20.02% 725 22.03% 797 23.96% 867
3630 12.38% 449 16.55% 601 17.93% 651 20.00% 726 22.00% 798 23.93% 869
3640 12.36% 450 16.53% 602 17.91% 652 19.97% 727 21.97% 800 23.90% 870
3650 12.35% 451 16.51% 603 17.89% 653 19.95% 728 21.94% 801 23.87% 871
3660 12.33% 451 16.49% 604 17.87% 654 19.92% 729 21.91% 802 23.84% 873
3670 12.32% 452 16.47% 604 17.84% 655 19.90% 730 21.88% 803 23.81% 874
3680 12.30% 453 16.45% 605 17.82% 656 19.87% 731 21.86% 804 23.78% 875
3690 12.28% 453 16.43% 606 17.80% 657 19.84% 732 21.83% 806 23.75% 876
3700 12.27% 454 16.41% 607 17.78% 658 19.82% 733 21.80% 807 23.72% 878
3710 12.25% 455 16.39% 608 17.75% 659 19.80% 734 21.77% 808 23.69% 879
3720 12.24% 455 16.38% 609 17.73% 660 19.77% 735 21.75% 809 23.66% 880
3730 12.22% 456 16.36% 610 17.71% 661 19.75% 737 21.72% 810 23.63% 881
3740 12.21% 457 16.34% 611 17.69% 662 19.72% 738 21.69% 811 23.60% 883
3750 12.19% 457 16.32% 612 17.67% 662 19.70% 739 21.67% 813 23.57% 884
3760 12.18% 458 16.30% 613 17.64% 663 19.67% 740 21.64% 814 23.54% 885
3770 12.16% 458 16.28% 614 17.62% 664 19.65% 741 21.61% 815 23.52% 887
3780 12.15% 459 16.27% 615 17.60% 665 19.63% 742 21.59% 816 23.49% 888
3790 12.13% 460 16.25% 616 17.58% 666 19.60% 743 21.56% 817 23.46% 889
3800 12.12% 460 16.23% 617 17.56% 667 19.58% 744 21.54% 818 23.43% 890
3810 12.10% 461 16.21% 618 17.54% 668 19.55% 745 21.51% 820 23.40% 892
3820 12.09% 462 16.19% 619 17.52% 669 19.53% 746 21.48% 821 23.37% 893
3830 12.07% 462 16.18% 620 17.50% 670 19.51% 747 21.46% 822 23.35% 894
3840 12.06% 463 16.16% 620 17.48% 671 19.48% 748 21.43% 823 23.32% 895
3850 12.04% 464 16.14% 621 17.45% 672 19.46% 749 21.41% 824 23.29% 897
3860 12.03% 464 16.12% 622 17.43% 673 19.44% 750 21.38% 825 23.26% 898
3870 12.01% 465 16.11% 623 17.41% 674 19.42% 751 21.36% 827 23.24% 899
3880 12.00% 466 16.09% 624 17.39% 675 19.39% 752 21.33% 828 23.21% 901
3890 11.99% 466 16.07% 625 17.37% 676 19.37% 754 21.31% 829 23.18% 902
3900 11.97% 467 16.06% 626 17.35% 677 19.35% 755 21.28% 830 23.16% 903
3910 11.96% 468 16.04% 627 17.33% 678 19.33% 756 21.26% 831 23.13% 904
3920 11.94% 468 16.02% 628 17.31% 679 19.30% 757 21.23% 832 23.10% 906
3930 11.93% 469 16.00% 629 17.29% 680 19.28% 758 21.21% 834 23.08% 907
3940 11.91% 469 15.99% 630 17.27% 681 19.26% 759 21.19% 835 23.05% 908
3950 11.90% 470 15.97% 631 17.25% 682 19.24% 760 21.16% 836 23.02% 909
3960 11.89% 471 15.96% 632 17.23% 682 19.22% 761 21.14% 837 23.00% 911
3970 11.87% 471 15.94% 633 17.21% 683 19.19% 762 21.11% 838 22.97% 912
3980 11.86% 472 15.92% 634 17.20% 684 19.17% 763 21.09% 839 22.95% 913
3990 11.85% 473 15.91% 635 17.18% 685 19.15% 764 21.07% 841 22.92% 915\\



Child 2 Children 3 Children 4 Children 5 Children 6 Children
Combined
Net
Weekly
Income % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $
3500 12.60% 441 16.81% 588 18.25% 639 20.35% 712 22.38% 783 24.35% 852
3510 12.58% 442 16.79% 589 18.22% 640 20.32% 713 22.35% 784 24.32% 853
3520 12.57% 442 16.77% 590 18.20% 641 20.29% 714 22.32% 786 24.28% 855
3530 12.55% 443 16.75% 591 18.17% 642 20.26% 715 22.29% 787 24.25% 856
3540 12.53% 444 16.73% 592 18.15% 642 20.24% 716 22.26% 788 24.22% 857
3550 12.51% 444 16.71% 593 18.12% 643 20.21% 717 22.23% 789 24.19% 859
3560 12.50% 445 16.69% 594 18.10% 644 20.18% 718 22.20% 790 24.15% 860
3570 12.48% 446 16.67% 595 18.08% 645 20.15% 720 22.17% 791 24.12% 861
3580 12.46% 446 16.65% 596 18.05% 646 20.13% 721 22.14% 793 24.09% 862
3590 12.45% 447 16.63% 597 18.03% 647 20.10% 722 22.11% 794 24.06% 864
3600 12.43% 447 16.61% 598 18.00% 648 20.08% 723 22.08% 795 24.03% 865
3610 12.41% 448 16.59% 599 17.98% 649 20.05% 724 22.05% 796 23.99% 866
3620 12.40% 449 16.57% 600 17.96% 650 20.02% 725 22.03% 797 23.96% 867
3630 12.38% 449 16.55% 601 17.93% 651 20.00% 726 22.00% 798 23.93% 869
3640 12.36% 450 16.53% 602 17.91% 652 19.97% 727 21.97% 800 23.90% 870
3650 12.35% 451 16.51% 603 17.89% 653 19.95% 728 21.94% 801 23.87% 871
3660 12.33% 451 16.49% 604 17.87% 654 19.92% 729 21.91% 802 23.84% 873
3670 12.32% 452 16.47% 604 17.84% 655 19.90% 730 21.88% 803 23.81% 874
3680 12.30% 453 16.45% 605 17.82% 656 19.87% 731 21.86% 804 23.78% 875
3690 12.28% 453 16.43% 606 17.80% 657 19.84% 732 21.83% 806 23.75% 876
3700 12.27% 454 16.41% 607 17.78% 658 19.82% 733 21.80% 807 23.72% 878
3710 12.25% 455 16.39% 608 17.75% 659 19.80% 734 21.77% 808 23.69% 879
3720 12.24% 455 16.38% 609 17.73% 660 19.77% 735 21.75% 809 23.66% 880
3730 12.22% 456 16.36% 610 17.71% 661 19.75% 737 21.72% 810 23.63% 881
3740 12.21% 457 16.34% 611 17.69% 662 19.72% 738 21.69% 811 23.60% 883
3750 12.19% 457 16.32% 612 17.67% 662 19.70% 739 21.67% 813 23.57% 884
3760 12.18% 458 16.30% 613 17.64% 663 19.67% 740 21.64% 814 23.54% 885
3770 12.16% 458 16.28% 614 17.62% 664 19.65% 741 21.61% 815 23.52% 887
3780 12.15% 459 16.27% 615 17.60% 665 19.63% 742 21.59% 816 23.49% 888
3790 12.13% 460 16.25% 616 17.58% 666 19.60% 743 21.56% 817 23.46% 889
3800 12.12% 460 16.23% 617 17.56% 667 19.58% 744 21.54% 818 23.43% 890
3810 12.10% 461 16.21% 618 17.54% 668 19.55% 745 21.51% 820 23.40% 892
3820 12.09% 462 16.19% 619 17.52% 669 19.53% 746 21.48% 821 23.37% 893
3830 12.07% 462 16.18% 620 17.50% 670 19.51% 747 21.46% 822 23.35% 894
3840 12.06% 463 16.16% 620 17.48% 671 19.48% 748 21.43% 823 23.32% 895
3850 12.04% 464 16.14% 621 17.45% 672 19.46% 749 21.41% 824 23.29% 897
3860 12.03% 464 16.12% 622 17.43% 673 19.44% 750 21.38% 825 23.26% 898
3870 12.01% 465 16.11% 623 17.41% 674 19.42% 751 21.36% 827 23.24% 899
3880 12.00% 466 16.09% 624 17.39% 675 19.39% 752 21.33% 828 23.21% 901
3890 11.99% 466 16.07% 625 17.37% 676 19.37% 754 21.31% 829 23.18% 902
3900 11.97% 467 16.06% 626 17.35% 677 19.35% 755 21.28% 830 23.16% 903
3910 11.96% 468 16.04% 627 17.33% 678 19.33% 756 21.26% 831 23.13% 904
3920 11.94% 468 16.02% 628 17.31% 679 19.30% 757 21.23% 832 23.10% 906
3930 11.93% 469 16.00% 629 17.29% 680 19.28% 758 21.21% 834 23.08% 907
3940 11.91% 469 15.99% 630 17.27% 681 19.26% 759 21.19% 835 23.05% 908
3950 11.90% 470 15.97% 631 17.25% 682 19.24% 760 21.16% 836 23.02% 909
3960 11.89% 471 15.96% 632 17.23% 682 19.22% 761 21.14% 837 23.00% 911
3970 11.87% 471 15.94% 633 17.21% 683 19.19% 762 21.11% 838 22.97% 912
3980 11.86% 472 15.92% 634 17.20% 684 19.17% 763 21.09% 839 22.95% 913
3990 11.85% 473 15.91% 635 17.18% 685 19.15% 764 21.07% 841 22.92% 915
4000 11.83% 473 15.89% 636 17.16% 686 19.13% 765 21.04% 842 22.90%
4000 11.83% 473 15.89% 636 17.16% 686 19.13% 765 21.04% 842 22.90%

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...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.

Wow! I wish my world were this black and white.

 

[nathalee81]

Wow! I wish my world were this black and white.

Actually, I think you are the one who is living in a black and white world. If you donate some DNA, it means you are a parent. You don't have to stick around and raise the kid-you can just leave and claim your ex spouse is witch. Doesn't matter if you leave the kid high and dry-I guess in your world they are still the kid's parent?
In my world, a parent is something much more and doesn't even have to be related by blood. Adopted parents, grandparents, stepparents-anyone who steps up to the plate and RAISES the kid is their "parent". Not so black and white.

 

[bumbershoot]

My DH would happily spend $1800 a month to have a child of our own.

$1800 before including ANYTHING to support your own lives. Food, housing, heat, clothing, gas for cars, cars or money for commutes. Not even anything fund at all yet. $1800 just gone.

I can't even figure out how I would spend $1800 per month on my son, or the same amount adjusted for Seattle area wages. Just can't! And that's not even taking into account that the mother would also be expected to contribute something on otp of the 1800.

Of course if I were rich beyond belief I could find ways, but as a normal person I can't figure it out.

Believe me...nearly 7 years of trying for kid#2 = I know how strong the yearning is, but that does NOT mean we get to say "I'd pay $x if only" and have it mean anything. When they were married, I'm sure they weren't spending $1800 plus some more just on that child alone.

The 40% of 54,000 being $1800. That would be 40% before taxes. Take the $54k and figure out 70% take home pay from that. Now we are looking at $3150/month. Subtract the child support, the guy is left with $1350. If it takes $1800/month to house, feed, and keep warm a child, how is the guy suppose to house, feed, and keep warm himself on only $1350, along with subtracting the school clothes, doctor visits, after school activities and all the other extras from that $1350 and where exactly does that leave the dad? The answer is, it leaves him homeless.

Agreed.

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.

One certainly hopes that the mother is pitching in. Since this support is based on ONE year, not the years before or after, she should NOT be getting this amount. I'm a child of two divorces, and my dad was behind on child support more often than not, but support for us was nothing like that much, and when he didn't pay, my mom did what she could.

This guy tried for THREE YEARS to get the money reduced. That's a lot of court dates.

...but I can certainly question his moral decision to let a child grow up thinking he was unloved because he didn't want to pay $50 a month in support.

Money should not be used to let a child think a parent doesn't love them.

If the parents were still together and the spouse didn't make any money for years and years, why would that cause the children to think they were unloved? I have to say I'm a bit nervous about the statement...no matter what, my mom NEVER connected money with visitation. If my dad could see us, he saw us. In fact the visitations HELPED my mom during those times because she could take some extra shifts to make up for the shortfall AND my dad would be the one feeding us for the weekend. So if the kids are feeling unloved b/c of a lack of money, I get nervous that money is getting confused with visitation, communication, and how they see love.

But see you are forgetting that the father needs a certain amount of rooms for each kid. Then there is the fact that most mothers would fit tooth and nail if their kid is exposed to a stranger they don't know. plus all the unknowns when it comes to room mates such as is that room mate parting a lot and the problem that could happen with one. there are so many things that the mom could come back and take the dad to court over with a room mate. Especially if that room mate is a female. Which could be a possibility if that was all he could find.

Good point!

For a time my dad had a male roommate, and it allowed him to have a much bigger living space than he had before or after. Thankfully no one ever required him to have space for my brother and I to sleep separately (we looked at it as sort of a sleepover when we were there, or like camping in bunkbeds), it would have made it 100% impossible.

And he did have female roommates at times as well, though they were mainly girlfriends with extra room in their houses. I don't know how my mom dealt with it, but the reality for us was that those extra people actually added value to our visits because they were interesting and kind. The male roommate was a server at a crepe restaurant and not only provided us with order pads for us to play restaurant, but also let us come in every so often to eat crepes.

But, when THEY have kids and THEIR marriage falls apart, it is not THE SOLE responsibility of dad to provide for the kids, it's BOTH OF THEIRS.

Yes, one parent is going to be paying the other support, but it should not be to the point where that parent can't even pay for THEIR own basic needs.


She doesn't even call her dad dad, she calls m by his first name.

I totally agree that it's both parents who need to have responsibility. And you can't have one parent absolutely bereft b/c of paying the support. If the couple were together, the spouses would be BOTH chipping in and figuring out what to do, not just throwing the other to the wolves. Well, not in a healthy marriage, anyway. My MIL expected my FIL to make a certain amount; she had her whole universe set up with him making a certain amount. Towards the end of his life, he hadn't filed taxes (receiving pension and employed as a contractor) in 6 years just so he didn't pay out anything and he could appear to be making that amount. He was wrong for doing what he did, but she was wrong for being so MEAN about money and her expectations. She was still married to him and threw him to the wolves. They certainly weren't a healthy marriage, though!

However, it's possible to be a loving, happy child AND call your parent by name. I called my mom by her first name (my brother did too), and my son calls me by name as well. I'm not saying it doesn't mean bad stuff in your friend's case, but it doesn't necessarily and always mean something bad.

 

[manning]

Has the payroll mngr taken steps to correct his error??

 

[MomRN]

Here's a child support story for you- when I was 16 I left my mother's house. She was a user, and it was a toxic environment. So I went to high school and worked pretty much full-time and lived in the slum of apartments. I had a friend over 18 sign the rental agreement for me.

My mom had me keep some of my clothes at the house so that if anyone came in she could say I still lived there. Even though I was not living there, she was not paying one cent to my care (in fact she would charge me gas money to get to work in those rare instances I asked), my dad still paid her child support.

My dad was in his own world... he loved me, but his home situation wasn't any better for me. We had this talk, and he said he would just keep paying her if she left me alone to do my own thing. I did... worked full-time and graduated high school, living on my own. Turned 18, thought finally my dad can stop paying her.

BUT, I wanted to go to college, and that meant him paying her longer.

Finally, I got so tired of it. I quit college, got a better job and place, my dad had to hire a lawyer, and finally, FINALLY, I was emancipated at 19 and the order to pay support stopped.

I understand issues with deadbeat parents and not receiving chlid support, but there are definately flaws in the system. Knowing now what I wish I had known then, I should have just been emancipated when I was 16. But who knows if they would have allowed it? And I had to get out. Had to.

 

[disneymarie]

I think our payroll manager goofed up.

We had a request come in to show what one of our drivers makes. He is on one of the dedicated runs, so he does the same thing every week. The only difference is, there are some weeks with zero over time, other weeks with very little over time and other weeks with lots of over time.

When the manager sent in the info, he just pulled a report that showed what he had made in total for the year. The two of us who actually do the payroll, said that he should have only sent in what he actually makes, based on his 45 hour work week. The over time he makes is not a set amount.

Because of the manger sending in the total amount he made, the courts raised his child support by $178.00 a week. That is raised it by, not raised it to. I just about fell outta my seat, when we got the papers from the courts on the new child support amount.

Does anybody know if the OT pay should have been included or not. I tried to look it up, but I couldn't find anything - I could be looking right over it though. And I do know, that it will change from state to state.

My ex was based on his w-2 income tax filed for the year. If it was earned then a set portion by formula is owed. If his wages went up he was to report the increase. The same thing if they went down. I bet he had not been back to support court in years not reporting his increases, or fulltime hrs.

It goes to a childs needs and care, not the 40 hr week, but total of all jobs. If something changes then the adjustment can be made.

Although I only worked a 12-25 hr week, the agency set me at a 40 hr week and offset. But, I did receive some help for child care, I ahd to pay toward it, the ex nothing.
I lived on $75 a week, and he did not pay any of the $18 a week for months, to year.....finally I had run out of Uc, work hrs, and had to accept welfare. By the time the ex had a bench warrant out he paid $ and it went to the lien welfare placed, not split for the weeks I was to get it, and their weeks.

Then his wages starting going down and down...he worked for his best friend. Before I knew it as a construction worker over 17 years he was making $5 an hour?

They are going to use his Income tax anyway so seems right to me.

 

[deegack]

That is so not fair to the father on so many levels!!! Why would you even expect the father to not have over nights? Would you not have your kids for over nights? If not why expect the father? He is the child parent just as much as the mother. You expect the father to forfeit his rights to over nights just so you can have more of his income??

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%.

 

[sparklynails23]

..I have never felt despair, and I hope that I never do, because I saw the look in his eyes. For all I know, he may have killed himself..

That would be a trick since, according to you, he's still sending partial child support payments.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

That would be a trick since, according to you, he's still sending partial child support payments.

Yeah, but no one has seen or heard from him in a long while. Money comes occasionally, but we have no idea from where. His parents are distraught. Everyone (except the ex) is concerned. (Well, I guess we can add you to that list. )

You seem to take this personally. I am not sure why, but I hope that you can overcome whatever is causing you this pain.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

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%.

$3,600/mo between the two parents to support a child? Are you serious? Remember, most of those expenses exist with or without a child. The cost is not the total cost of rent (or mortgage), but the increase in cost to go from a one bedroom to a two bedroom. The additional food costs would not exceed $300/mo for a single child. No matter how you figure it out, it does not cost $3,600/mo above standard living expenses to support a child in the manner that they would have become accustomed to as the child of an average fire fighter.

 

[sparklynails23]

Yeah, but no one has seen or heard from him in a long while. Money comes occasionally, but we have no idea from where. His parents are distraught. Everyone (except the ex) is concerned. (Well, I guess we can add you to that list. )

You seem to take this personally. I am not sure why, but I hope that you can overcome whatever is causing you this pain.

Just because I don't agree with you, that doesn't mean I take this story about your "friend" personally. A suggestion: from all of your posts about your troubled friends, I would suggest that you choose them more carefully.

I would guess that his payments aren't coming from the grave-- or that you were mistaken and there really are no payments being made. I hope the law catches up to your "friend."