How much child support is too much? Is there such a thing?

[danacara]

Originally posted by LadyAurora
I still think that some of that $10,000 would be better off in a trust for the child, rather than being spent on a lifestyle,

Hard to say. Zephyrhills, FL is very different in cost of living from NYC, NY. But the point of the trust, to you, is to keep the mother from benefitting from the money, right? That's the unspoken allusion, that the money is being wasted by the mother. And I don't think that's necessarily a legitimate assumption.

 

[mom2of2]

I apologize Lady Aurora, I didn't want my post to sound directed at anyone in particular. It was a different post that started the blood boiling and I mistakenly referred to your post. I did edit.

danacara ITA

 

[Tigger&Belle]

Originally posted by monarchsfan16
Well I'm the kid with divorced parents but my dad talks (complains) a lot about child support. According to the courts the child support is paid to allow the child to maintain the same lifestyle that they had before the divorce. A professional athlete's kid would have had quite a bit of money pre-divorce. The goal of child support is to not change the financial status of the child. The point the courts seem to make is that the kid should be as unaffected by the divorce as possible and they think that the money will allow that.
And $10k a month is a lot. But yes it's based entirely on income.
ETA: Here in NH it's percentage of income. For one kid the parent pays 25% of their income. For 2 kids it's 33% of their income. And it keeps climbing although it does cap off at a certain level if I remember correctly.

Thanks for the good explanation. You sound like a very well grounded, mature young lady. I'm sorry that your dad complains to you, or within earshot of you, about child support. Afterall, you're not the one that put you in this situation!

T&B

 

[LadyAurora]

Originally posted by Microcell


BTW Why did you make more kids with your husband if you felt it was so much of a strain to support the ones he already has?

OK, I'm not sure who you are addressing with this, but I don't have any children of my own, if you meant me. I wish.

 

[Octoberbeauty]

Originally posted by LadyAurora
OK, I give up. I guess I really didn't realize how expensive it is to raise a child to be a little millionaire, what with fancy schools, stay-at-home moms, designer clothes, etc. He probably would have spent $10,000 per month on the little one, and more.
Bu tI still think that some of that $10,000 would be better off in a trust for the child, rather than being spent on a lifestyle, because eventually the athlete will get hurt, or old, and his lifestyle will change drastically. And where will the child be then? Guess his child support will be refigured.

How is it that you know the mother isn't taking some of that money and putting it away for college? Have you called her? I'm not trying to be rude, but you're acting like the father is the only one who can even begin to think about a child's future and that the mother's must just "blow" all the money they get.

This is a touchy subject for me as I am going through a divorce right now. Child Support does cap off after a certain point and it really isn't that far up the chain before it does. I'm only getting 17% with two children. It's still a nice amount, but when we were married I could afford to stay home with my children, now not only are they giving up living with both parents, but mommy will not be around as much either. I am planning on making some sacrifices so that I can work part time and still be able to help out at my children's school and to be with them when they get home in the afternoons as much as possible. Does my husband resent me? Heck yeah, he thinks I'm taking a "free ride" on HIS money. HA! I gave up my career to promote his. I stayed home and had two children and raised them while he was off working, etc. I want to do the best that I can to make this transition as easy on THEM as possible. Ugh! I'm just going to stop here before I say something that's not nice.

Hugs,
Sherry

 

[danacara]

Originally posted by LadyAurora
OK, I'm not sure who you are addressing with this, but I don't have any children of my own, if you meant me. I wish.

Can I venture a guess? It's personal, feel free to ignore this totally. But does "I wish" mean that you'd love to, but you can't afford to, partially due to these child support payments?

 

[mom2of2]

Oh, and as a sidenote, the courts didn't give a rat's behind that DH had another child with me, his second wife. As far as they were concerned, she could starve.

I think this is the post that Microcell was referring too, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[momof2inPA]

Originally posted by momof2inPA
I have yet to hear of a child support payment that is out of line with the non-custodial parent's income.

Oh, sorry, I meant on the "too much" side. I have never heard of a child support payment that was too much for the non-custodial parent.

 

[LadyAurora]

Originally posted by danacara
Hard to say. Zephyrhills, FL is very different in cost of living from NYC, NY. But the point of the trust, to you, is to keep the mother from benefitting from the money, right? That's the unspoken allusion, that the money is being wasted by the mother. And I don't think that's necessarily a legitimate assumption.

No, the point of the trust, to me, is to assure the child's future. Because even millionaires can lose their money, athletes retire or are injured, etc. But then, who is to say that if the athlete and his ex were still married, and spending big bucks on their child, that they would save any for a rainy day. Maybe they would still blow it all. And I don't know that the mother isn't saving some of the money for later, but many of the previous posts were quick to point out that the mom/child would need that much money to support the child's lifestyle.
We do not know that this athlete's child is living without his daddy, any more than he would have been if they were still married.
I was just struck by the seemingly large amounts of money involoved with this particular athlete's case. Not saying that the ex-wife is an evil, money grubbing witch out to get her hands on her ex's money, or stealing food out of the mouth of her child. Not saying that the athlete didn't need to be responsible for his child. Not saying he shouldn't pay that much, exactly.
I guess I have just led a sheltered life. I didn't know it was so expensive to raise a child....when you have a ton of money.

 

[LadyAurora]

Originally posted by danacara
Can I venture a guess? It's personal, feel free to ignore this totally. But does "I wish" mean that you'd love to, but you can't afford to, partially due to these child support payments?

No, just can't get pregnant.

 

[Octoberbeauty]

Originally posted by LadyAurora
I guess I have just led a sheltered life. I didn't know it was so expensive to raise a child....when you have a ton of money.

It's expensive to raise a child Period whether you have a lot of money or not. Of course you're going to have more opportunities and luxuries when you have more....why shouldn't you?

 

[LadyAurora]

Have to leave now, time to pick up hubby from the airport. So...

I surrender! When it comes to children, there is never enough money!!

 

[danacara]

It was never about "enough."

 

[Lucky4me]

Originally posted by danacara
Ya, I totally agree. My father was, oh, $120K in arrears when I turned 18, plus the college fund he looted in direct violation of a court order four years earlier? He's now in deep trouble for something totally unrelated, but it was like getting blood from a stone. Everything turned out OK, but there but for the grace of God go I ...

Lady Aurora, when you say:
"My point was, I didn't think anyone really spent $10,000 per month on a child."
What we hear is:
I don't think the custodial parent should benefit, so unless they spend $10K on the child directly, they shouldn't get the money. I should get the money for our new family.
What many of the posters are telling you is:
We disagree. The custodial parent is raising the child that the supporting parent saw fit to create, plus she should be working to support herself, by your logic. Is that fair to the child, in a case where the father clearly has means? If the child's parents were together, and income was exceeding $10K net/month, chances are, that child would have a lovely home, a savings account, maybe private school, certainly lots of lessons, all the benefits of upper-middle class life in the United States. Even though his or her parents are divorced, the courts take the position that the child should retain those benefits. And yes, a stay-at-home-mother can be a huge benefit - ask half the posters on this board Mom is going to benefit when the kid does.

Of course second wives hate that. Who can blame them? But to be fair to that first set of children, they deserve what they get. If they're lucky, they'll be able to use the assets to offset a more fundamental disadvantage, Dad is not home with us, one that the children of second marriages don't have to overcome.

And I guess my last point is, barring extreme circumstances, second wives know what they're getting when they marry men who already have children. That money never belonged to the second wives or their families at all. It was gone the day those first babies were born.

EXCELLENT post, especially the last paragraph.

 

[JessetheCowgirl]

I have been there as a child myself with a mom who barely made ends meet.

Even though our father made a decent living, our standard of living most definitely decreased.

So, I say no. The father made that choice when the children were conceived.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by momof2inPA
I have yet to hear of a child support payment that is out of line with the non-custodial parent's income.

Pm me and I'll tell you all about 1

 

[Shugardrawers]

I am a second wife who cheerfully pays at minimum the court ordered amount and frequently more than that and here's why:

When my parents divorced in 1973 my father was ordered to pay 17% of his income in child support. We never saw a dime. Often, the free lunches we got at school was the only meal we had. The electricity was frequently off and we were thrilled to get "new" clothes from Goodwill.

DSis receives a generous $117 a MONTH from her ex-dh. He complains about every dime too and has never chipped in a cent extra the few times they've asked. He's supposed to be paying a lot more but found a loophole a mile wide. Her ex-dh is gay. He became a stay at home partner. His partner is a Dr. making over $100,000 a year. They aren't legally married so there's nothing she or the courts can do.

My DH makes a decent living. Frequently there is lots of overtime to be had and he works it cheerfully. At times he brings home what amounts to triple a normal weeks pay for him. Those times I have been known to add in an extra $100 because we have it and we can afford it. The court says we only have to pay 15% but in a month when he brings home $6000 that extra $400 I send isn't going to kill us. If she lived with us we'd be doing extra things for her anyway wouldn't we? I don't begrudge her mom a dime or worry about how it's being spent. She's a single parent and has enough problems without us hassling her about the money.

If a parent has the good fortune to make what to most of us is a fortune, why shouldn't the child be entitled to that same lifestyle? And who cares if the mom stays at home with him/her? So long as the mom isn't spending it on a bad coke habit or to support worthless boyfriends she should enjoy that lifestyle too. If a man (or woman for that matter) doesn't want to keep the child and custodial parent in a lifestyle in keeping with his or hers then they should just keep it in their pants to begin with.

 

[cgcw]

Originally posted by momof2inPA
Oh, sorry, I meant on the "too much" side. I have never heard of a child support payment that was too much for the non-custodial parent.

I met my DH when he had just gotten divorced back in 1985. At the time, he was paying 43% of his income to child support for his daughter.

Although his ex was the one who wanted to the divorce because she met someone else, he was the one who walked away from his home, his furniture, his car and his family. The reason he took nothing?? He didn't want to upset his daughters life anymore than it was going to be upset. It was extremely important to him that she maintain some stability. If it meant he did without, that's what he did. DH was living in a 1 bedroom apartment with a twin bed and a TV set. That's all he had. DH was barely able to buy groceries. He ate a lot of dinners at his mom & dad's home or I would surprise him and bring groceries over so we could make dinner.

I know my DH would do it again if he had to.

 

[jrydberg]

Kinda hard to sit here and have any sympathy when I basically had to waive child support (among other things) in order to get custody of my daughter. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of making parents pay for the upbringing of their children. Just that men are not treated the same in court as women in this regard.

I would expect to pay all expenses for a child if I were the custodial parent. On the other hand, if I were the non-custodial parent, I would certainly pay my share.

In a nutshell, just because I am responsible doesn't mean I expect others to be.

 

[PattnFmly]

I think people tend to think of the custodial mom as in desperate dire straights just because the FOB is not there anymore. But what about those women who remarry, have more children, and then complain that they don't get enough child support from the first father? The 2nd husband works, the woman does not, because her share of the household expenses comes from her first husband. Our perception in this country is always that the woman is the shafted one, but often it is just not true. Don't forget, that often the poor father isn't allowed to see his child, because the ex is so spiteful that she won't allow it. Not to mention the fact that she fills her child with hateful thoughts of the father, just because she hates him. Father's rights in this country are woeful and no one even cares.