Child Support is unfair

[Katzndogz]

I can't believe some of you actually think its ok to spend child support money on yourself. How does personal luxury equate ti child support?

You don't understand the whole concept of money. Money is fungible. A mother who works pays rent, maybe she pays rent on a two bedroom apartment instead of a one bedroom if she lived alone. She buys food and Froot Loops for the kid's breakfast. She pays the electric bill, so the kid can do his or her homework at night. Maybe she buys the kid new shoes instead of getting herself a new dress. She's paying for all these things. When she gets child support it is really reimbursement for all the expenses she has already paid so she can spend the money on anything she likes.

 

[Katzndogz]

Some jurisdictions will accept shared child custody by nesting. In a nesting agreement, both parents contribute an equal amount of money to maintain a separate home for the child. The child has one address and never moves. The parents transition in and out of the apartment on a weekly basis, maintaining some cheaper alternative of their own. The parents split the rent and utilities, when they are the parent in residence, they buy the food. Whatever the child needs or wants is paid for by the parent in residence. Some expenses are split. Sports, extracirricular activities are all split evenly. Religious instruction is satisfied by the parent taking the child to a house of worship in their week.

For those who can afford it, it works out quite well.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

1st, what you purpose is a huge burden on the state, added layers of government we dont need, intrusiveness/loss of privacy from both the government and the other parent, and the cost would be very high for something I see as unnecessary.

2nd, you seem to be under the impression non-custodial parents are often sending excessive amounts of money that need to be accounted for.

I seriously think you need to invest some time in researching how much it cost to care for a child, because your lack of knowledge in this topic is glaring.

The R's would love another excuse to add even more government. Its what they do - bigger and bigger government with the goal of taking away freedom.

 

[Aristotle]

The State can track what you spend and limit spending on items that are non-essential to sustenance. For example, with the EBT card you can track your balance and purchases you've made. I propose the same with child support. Have the state set standards of what is essential to the welfare of the child. Making purchases of alcohol and/or items not essential to the well-being of the child off limits.

Example:

The primary custodian must indicate how much rent they pay a month, have whatever amount that is agreed upon, and allow any monies to be deducted to go towards the rent and/or utilities. The purchasing of any or new items which causes debt, non-essential to the welfare of the child is off limits. The purchasing of alcohol or tabacco is off limits. The purchasing of adult clothing and/or gift bags is off limits. Any money that is taken out via ATM transaction must have follow up documentation as to why monies were taken out.

Sounds like work doesn't it? I gurantee you, if you employ this standard in divorce decrees or custody disputes the courts would be less clogged with domestic issues than they are now. As far as exceeding the amount all you have to do is come to an agreeable standard of payment per month or bi-weekly, put that amount on the card and have that person use that amount on that card.

If additional money is needed, social workers must be contacted, the person requesting an additional amount must document why he/she needs additional money and based on the request, the one paying child support must provide additional financial support. This eliminates custody disputes regarding finances.

The state cannot track private funds paid from one private citizen to another absent evidence of abuse, neglect, or some other criminal activity. That would violate due process doctrine and constitute a presumption of guilt on the part of the CP; citizens are not required to ‘prove’ they’re not doing anything wrong.

You’re also confusing public assistance with private party child support; the state can track the former as stewards of public monies.

And yet again: if the non-custodial parent believes there is abuse, neglect, or other inappropriate activity on the part of the CP, he/she can bring that evidence to the authorities and petition the court for a modification of the order.

Otherwise, it’s nonsense to propose a CP be subject to ‘tracking’ because he/she ‘might’ do something wrong.

And the anecdotal ‘evidence’ you provided in subsequent posts does not justify creation of a blanket tracking policy for all custodial parents.

Exactly. The OP is more interested in punishing the mother than helping the children.

A sad excuse for a human being, imo.

Wait how is me calling for the tracking of money and the desire for the primary custodial parent to allocate funds to the ppropriate destination punishment?

 

[Aristotle]

I can't believe some of you actually think its ok to spend child support money on yourself. How does personal luxury equate ti child support?

You don't understand the whole concept of money. Money is fungible. A mother who works pays rent, maybe she pays rent on a two bedroom apartment instead of a one bedroom if she lived alone. She buys food and Froot Loops for the kid's breakfast. She pays the electric bill, so the kid can do his or her homework at night. Maybe she buys the kid new shoes instead of getting herself a new dress. She's paying for all these things. When she gets child support it is really reimbursement for all the expenses she has already paid so she can spend the money on anything she likes.

Sometimes its hard to not insult some of you guys as many of you do not express common sense and simple reading comprehension.

Where in the world did I say the mother cannot spend money on rent? I clearly stated that the issue here is that there are women (or primary custodian of the child(rend), spend their money on personal luxury. Do you understand what personal luxury is?

Personal luxury is not child support.

Do you need me to put this in subtitles?

Example:

A mom using money spending child support on Disneyland tickets is not child support its a personal luxury and a temporary gratification for the child. Why is it temporary gratification? Because at some point the theme park closes and you leave.

A mom spending money getting her hair and nails done is not child support as none of the aforementioned supports the child at all.....Get it?

 

[Katzndogz]

I can't believe some of you actually think its ok to spend child support money on yourself. How does personal luxury equate ti child support?

You don't understand the whole concept of money. Money is fungible. A mother who works pays rent, maybe she pays rent on a two bedroom apartment instead of a one bedroom if she lived alone. She buys food and Froot Loops for the kid's breakfast. She pays the electric bill, so the kid can do his or her homework at night. Maybe she buys the kid new shoes instead of getting herself a new dress. She's paying for all these things. When she gets child support it is really reimbursement for all the expenses she has already paid so she can spend the money on anything she likes.

Sometimes its hard to not insult some of you guys as many of you do not express common sense and simple reading comprehension.

Where in the world did I say the mother cannot spend money on rent? I clearly stated that the issue here is that there are women (or primary custodian of the child(rend), spend their money on personal luxury. Do you understand what personal luxury is?

Personal luxury is not child support.


Do you need me to put this in subtitles?

Example:

A mom using money spending child support on Disneyland tickets is not child support its a personal luxury and a temporary gratification for the child. Why is it temporary gratification? Because at some point the theme park closes and you leave.

A mom spending money getting her hair and nails done is not child support as none of the aforementioned supports the child at all.....Get it?

Oh boy, I know I can't explain the concept of child support to you. All the judges who award child support and tell people they have no right to say how that support is spent haven't been able to explain it to you.

Child support becomes part of the general pool of money that belongs to the mother as the provider. She might spend the money she has on new school clothes and then spend the child support on getting her hair and nails done, or new shoes. She gets to do that because she has already spent her own money on the child, in the form of maintenance. She pays rent, she pays utilities, she buys food. Think of child support as reimbursement for the money she has already paid for the child's well being. There is no requirement at all, that people sequester child support outside of household expenditures.

Whether you think I'm wrong, or this is silly, or doesn't make sense has no bearing on the situation as it exists. People who pay child support have absolutely no say in how that money is spent. That's the reality in every family law court in the country.

The issue is NOT whether women should be prohibited from spending their money on personal luxuries. It's their money, they can spend it any way they want. After all once a man sends off his child support check is HE prohibited from spending his money on personal luxuries? If he can afford to go out for a beer with the guys or buy a ticket to the ball game isn't that proof that he's not paying enough in child support?

 

[koshergrl]

I can't believe some of you actually think its ok to spend child support money on yourself. How does personal luxury equate ti child support?

You don't understand the whole concept of money. Money is fungible. A mother who works pays rent, maybe she pays rent on a two bedroom apartment instead of a one bedroom if she lived alone. She buys food and Froot Loops for the kid's breakfast. She pays the electric bill, so the kid can do his or her homework at night. Maybe she buys the kid new shoes instead of getting herself a new dress. She's paying for all these things. When she gets child support it is really reimbursement for all the expenses she has already paid so she can spend the money on anything she likes.

Sometimes its hard to not insult some of you guys as many of you do not express common sense and simple reading comprehension.

Where in the world did I say the mother cannot spend money on rent? I clearly stated that the issue here is that there are women (or primary custodian of the child(rend), spend their money on personal luxury. Do you understand what personal luxury is?

Personal luxury is not child support.

Do you need me to put this in subtitles?

Example:

A mom using money spending child support on Disneyland tickets is not child support its a personal luxury and a temporary gratification for the child. Why is it temporary gratification? Because at some point the theme park closes and you leave.

A mom spending money getting her hair and nails done is not child support as none of the aforementioned supports the child at all.....Get it?

You're wrong.

 

[High_Gravity]

I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?

"Child" support is the biggest scam going, hardly any of that money goes to take care of that particular child.

 

[jillian]

The State can track what you spend and limit spending on items that are non-essential to sustenance. For example, with the EBT card you can track your balance and purchases you've made. I propose the same with child support. Have the state set standards of what is essential to the welfare of the child. Making purchases of alcohol and/or items not essential to the well-being of the child off limits.

Example:

The primary custodian must indicate how much rent they pay a month, have whatever amount that is agreed upon, and allow any monies to be deducted to go towards the rent and/or utilities. The purchasing of any or new items which causes debt, non-essential to the welfare of the child is off limits. The purchasing of alcohol or tabacco is off limits. The purchasing of adult clothing and/or gift bags is off limits. Any money that is taken out via ATM transaction must have follow up documentation as to why monies were taken out.

Sounds like work doesn't it? I gurantee you, if you employ this standard in divorce decrees or custody disputes the courts would be less clogged with domestic issues than they are now. As far as exceeding the amount all you have to do is come to an agreeable standard of payment per month or bi-weekly, put that amount on the card and have that person use that amount on that card.

If additional money is needed, social workers must be contacted, the person requesting an additional amount must document why he/she needs additional money and based on the request, the one paying child support must provide additional financial support. This eliminates custody disputes regarding finances.

The state cannot track private funds paid from one private citizen to another absent evidence of abuse, neglect, or some other criminal activity. That would violate due process doctrine and constitute a presumption of guilt on the part of the CP; citizens are not required to ‘prove’ they’re not doing anything wrong.

You’re also confusing public assistance with private party child support; the state can track the former as stewards of public monies.

And yet again: if the non-custodial parent believes there is abuse, neglect, or other inappropriate activity on the part of the CP, he/she can bring that evidence to the authorities and petition the court for a modification of the order.

Otherwise, it’s nonsense to propose a CP be subject to ‘tracking’ because he/she ‘might’ do something wrong.

And the anecdotal ‘evidence’ you provided in subsequent posts does not justify creation of a blanket tracking policy for all custodial parents.

Exactly. The OP is more interested in punishing the mother than helping the children.

A sad excuse for a human being, imo.

it's a giant temper tantrum because he doesn't get to continue to tell her what to do now that they're divorced.

here's a hint for him, though:

ex spouses don't like each other, generally, or they'd still be married.

asking one to "agree" with the other on allocating anything is a recipe for disaster

women are grown ups who shouldn't have to ask for permission about how to spend money... that's why a PERCENTAGE of income is ordered and courts don't preside over every squabble about every expenditure.

and yes, in some instances, trust gets abused... but not most. in most cases, people learn to be grown ups and work together.

 

[Ravi]

The state cannot track private funds paid from one private citizen to another absent evidence of abuse, neglect, or some other criminal activity. That would violate due process doctrine and constitute a presumption of guilt on the part of the CP; citizens are not required to ‘prove’ they’re not doing anything wrong.

You’re also confusing public assistance with private party child support; the state can track the former as stewards of public monies.

And yet again: if the non-custodial parent believes there is abuse, neglect, or other inappropriate activity on the part of the CP, he/she can bring that evidence to the authorities and petition the court for a modification of the order.

Otherwise, it’s nonsense to propose a CP be subject to ‘tracking’ because he/she ‘might’ do something wrong.

And the anecdotal ‘evidence’ you provided in subsequent posts does not justify creation of a blanket tracking policy for all custodial parents.

Exactly. The OP is more interested in punishing the mother than helping the children.

A sad excuse for a human being, imo.

it's a giant temper tantrum because he doesn't get to continue to tell her what to do now that they're divorced.

here's a hint for him, though:

ex spouses don't like each other, generally, or they'd still be married.

asking one to "agree" with the other on allocating anything is a recipe for disaster

women are grown ups who shouldn't have to ask for permission about how to spend money... that's why a PERCENTAGE of income is ordered and courts don't preside

and yes, in some instances, trust gets abused... but not most. in most cases, people learn to be grown ups and work together.

Yep, unless they are emotionally immature and let their vendettas harm their children's lives.

 

[koshergrl]

"Many associations of noncustodial parents emerged after the 1980s to express their belief that awards were burdensome to the payers, benefited only the custodial parent, or did not provide payers with enough in return. At the same time, more single parents with children slipped into poverty than had at any other point in the nation's history."

Child Support legal definition of Child Support. Child Support synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[High_Gravity]

One of my clients ended up a father from a one night stand and she assured him that she was on the pill. He faithfully paid child support for 18 years. Periodically the mother took him to court to get an increase. And tried several times to force this man to visit the child, send Christmas and Birthday presents but he never did. The mother fought for and got a court order for visitation and shared vacation times. She just could not get an order forcing him to visit or have the child for six weeks during the summer or alternate holidays. He paid, every month, what the law said he had to pay. No more, no less. He understood that he made a mistake and had to pay for that mistake. He did it without complaint. Raising the child was entirely the mother's responsibility. She chose to get pregnant. She chose not to take the pill as she said she did. He bore no responsibility beyond financial restitution for his momentary lapse. He never saw the child, never spoke to the child, never accepted any letters with regard to the child or from the child when she got old enough. It was a fair resolution.

Plenty of women would have no problem with that arrangement as long as they get their check.

 

[koshergrl]

Why shouldn't they get a check?

Birth control fails. I've gotten pregnant while on the pill, I've gotten pregnant using a condom...that's 2 out of my 4 children, accidental.

My best friend got pregnant while on the pill.

My sister in law got pregnant while on the pill.

There's always a chance of birth control failing, and if it does, it's the responsibility of both parties to support the baby that comes of it.

 

[High_Gravity]

Why shouldn't they get a check?

Birth control fails. I've gotten pregnant while on the pill, I've gotten pregnant using a condom...that's 2 out of my 4 children, accidental.

My best friend got pregnant while on the pill.

My sister in law got pregnant while on the pill.

There's always a chance of birth control failing, and if it does, it's the responsibility of both parties to support the baby that comes of it.

I have no problem with the child being supported, but some of these ludicrous amount of child support I hear of are out there. A man can't be much good for his child if he hands over all his cash to his ex and has to live on a friends couch.

 

[koshergrl]

Why not? Custodial parents fork over most of their income for the kids as well.

 

[koshergrl]

Why shouldn't I get half of what I spend on my kids every month? It would be about $1000.

 

[High_Gravity]

Why shouldn't I get half of what I spend on my kids every month? It would be about $1000.

$1000 is fine but does the father even have the money though? thats my thing the child support figure has to be realistic, if I don't make that much money I couldn't give you $1000 a month even if I wanted to.

 

[koshergrl]

Do I have the money?

No, I don't. But I find it because I have to. Why should he get a pass?

 

[koshergrl]

And in the event he doesn't, then we hit arrears, and he can pay me back later.

 

[PaulS1950]

The state can't take more than 50% of a man's income for the support of any one family (same mother). If you get multiple women pregnant then they can take it all.....

Having been a paying member for my two beautiful children (now grown with their own families) I can say that paying support money to a drug addict is not fun. When my daughter moved away from home I paid a support check to her directly and to her mother because the state was not "made aware" (by mom) that the child was no longer living with her. I gladly paid the extra money to my daughter but I resented paying the money to her mother because she was / is a practicing addict paying multiple doctors to deal out narcotics via multiple pharmacies.
This was long ago and it was impossible for me to get custody of my kids - even though my ex was in a detox center when the divorce was filed. I can't speak on what it is like today but an addict should be reported to CPS until they do the tests. If she is using then the father should be able to get custody - it was different "in the old days".