Dr. Phil 2/27 - Page 6

[mmace]

Buying a house that you could not afford without CS is just not smart.

What about the single mother who stays in the marital home? We bought this house together, I can afford it still because of my income plus what I receive in child support. If that support disappeared I would most definitely be screwed.

My mortgage payment is $1025/month, but part of the house is a seperate apartment that rents out for $450/month, so my actual housing cost is $575/month (those figures include taxes and insurance, in case you - general you - I quoted, but this post is a general post, not aimed at any particular person - want to know). Could I rent something cheaper? Probably, but not much cheaper. Add in the fact that this house is paid off in seven years and I would be crazy to not stay put.

My budget is tight, but the fact that I can make it meet our needs with me working only part-time is a testament to me, not a bad thing. Losing that $1200/month (three kids, remember) would be catastrophic!

[DogwoodFairy]

Originally Posted by ~Purity♥Lake~

I do not see a house as a need. I see a house as a luxury. I think a roof over your head and a home are a need, but I don't think that must be an actual house for the need to be fulfilled.

Socks, I see you are saying the same thing regarding some kind of home, I am just quoting you because it's a clear sentence to make my point that a roof is necessary; an actual house I see as a luxury.

Hm, I see. So as the CP, my son and I should be content renting a small apartment in a less than stellar area of town, or maybe a small run-down trailer in a park, while my ex is living in a 2500 sf, 3 story house. His house (the marital home) has 3 bedrooms/2 baths, a wrap-around deck, covered porch, hot tub, seperate 2 car garage, on 5 private acres in the woods.

I consider all of those amenities luxuries. Obviously, I am not expecting to have such posh living arrangements. Nor am I saying that I can afford to run out and buy a house, even with c/s. An apartment is what I will have, and it will be a small one. And it probably wont be in the nicest area of town.

However, I need c/s to do even that right now. I've been a SAHM, and out of the workforce for 2 years now. The job market is crap right now. Its very hard for me to find work that will fit w/my son's childcare needs. I cant afford childcare as it is (c/s would help there, too).

You dont feel that my son's father is at least partially responsible for providing monetary support so that our son can enjoy BOTH homes as safe, comfortable homes that meet basic needs? And why is it any different to pay a mortgage payment for a house w/child support, then rent?

Rent in my targeted area is insane (its a college town). A mortgage payment would be about the same. And yet a house is a luxury?

[DogwoodFairy]

I meant to point out what a pp said earlier, when 2 people make the commitment to be married and raise children in a certain standard of living, both parents should try to maintain that standard of living AFTER the marriage as well. If its financially impossble for my ex to pay for his own luxurious accomodations, and still pay c/s, then he can move on down and get himself a crappy little trailer, too.

In my own personal situation, my ex is using his house and amenities to show the court that HE can provide a great home for our son, whereas I cannot. No, I cannot afford a hot tub (lol) or a landscaped 2 acre lawn with a swingset. But if my ex was willing to make some personal sacrifices, his son could enjoy two homes - both with decent space, and a small yard for ds, maybe his own bedroom eventually.

Once I am on my feet, and on the other side of this divorce, I intend to buy a small house, with or without stbx's help. But it would be nice if I could count on the c/s. That is why its called a child support ORDER, not a child support SUGGESTION.

[ginger_rodgers]

Well, again, Purity Lake's view is the grasshopper's, not the ant's.

Yes, renting is cheaper, and we could get by day to day. But someday I'll be old. Jobs will be harder to come by, and I may not be well. Having a place of my own then will be important, as will the equity in the house.

If you're 25 now and thinking "oh, well, I'll focus on getting a house when my kids are grown," keep in mind you may be well into your 40s by the time that happens. I can tell you that age discrimination in jobs starts before 40 for women, and that breaking in to a good salaried position is much harder at 45 than it is at 30, particularly if your education is out of date or incomplete. Is it possible, for many, yes. But for some it's a long stony road. Also, when you get that magic salary, you'll find when you go to the bank that you'll be paying a mortgage until you're 75.

These numbers are all very abstract when you're young. One of my college roommates is 43 now; her mother needs care, and increasingly one of her sisters needs care. She hasn't got any children, thank God, or she'd be going out of her mind. She's paid rent in NY all her life, and has more or less nothing saved, even though she's got a job that pays in the 70s. Last year, when her landlord of ten years suddenly kicked her out, she tried to scrape together a down payment for an apartment and couldn't do it.

I realized for the first time that she may be in real trouble when she's older. Rents in NY will not go down. And even if she managed to buy a place, she'd still be paying a mortgage in her early 70s, though probably retired and living on -- what? Social Security? Maybe, if it's still around. Pension? Doesn't have one. Savings? She's got all of $20K saved so far. Parental help? No, there's only her mother, and while her mother owns an apartment, it will almost certainly go to pay nursing home costs. So how is my friend going to pay a mortgage at 70? Who will employ her that long? And if she can't pay a mortgage, how on earth will she be able to afford rent, which will be many times a mortgage payment by then? I don't know where she'll live.

So no, houses, places of our own, these are not luxuries. They're not necessities today. But we'll be alive, God willing, for much longer than today.

[phrogger]

And again, expecting child support to pay for the MOTHERS home is relivant how? child support goes to providing for the kids, not the long term care of the mother. That would be alimony.

When are we women going to take some responsiblity for our own actions and life. Sure, we might not be able to provide a huge house, but child support WILL end someday, so shouldn't our housing costs be something that we can provide on our own rather then being completely dependant on CS. So you get a house with a 30 year loan dependant on childsupport and in 18 years the CS ends. What then?

Then again, I was more then happy to live in a tiny apartment with my boys with very little material items but instead they were happy and content and involved with both parents.

[Seasons]

Originally Posted by phrogger

And again, expecting child support to pay for the MOTHERS home is relivant how?

The mother's home is relevent because children live there. Children under 18 don't live by themselves.

Originally Posted by phrogger

When are we women going to take some responsiblity for our own actions and life.

Oh, but that's exactly what this thread is about: having those women (and men) who are supposed to pay child support, held responsible to their pre-divorce "contract" with the other parent regarding a standard of living for the children.

[ginger_rodgers]

Originally Posted by phrogger

And again, expecting child support to pay for the MOTHERS home is relivant how? child support goes to providing for the kids, not the long term care of the mother. That would be alimony.

When are we women going to take some responsiblity for our own actions and life. Sure, we might not be able to provide a huge house, but child support WILL end someday, so shouldn't our housing costs be something that we can provide on our own rather then being completely dependant on CS. So you get a house with a 30 year loan dependant on childsupport and in 18 years the CS ends. What then?

Then again, I was more then happy to live in a tiny apartment with my boys with very little material items but instead they were happy and content and involved with both parents.

Phrogger, it's a matter of basic arithmetic.

If the daddy skips out on his responsibility, someone must make it up. If the mother can, she will. However, that's money she can't spend on something else. Like, say, a mortgage and home maintenance that will provide for her housing when she's older.

I think you really need to drop this fantasy that all single mothers -- or even most single mothers -- can support and raise their families in the moment while looking after their own retirements and emergency needs on their own. The numbers are solidly against you.

Also, Phrogger, what happens when you're older? Have you got a home of your own now? If not, will you expect the public to house you, after telling your ex to forgo paying? If so, that's really no different from asking the public to support your husband's desire to pay less in the moment -- it's just a deferment. Or will your sons and their wives support you? If so, that'd be wonderful of them, but unless all four work together well and can afford to carry you as well as their own children, that can come at a real cost.

I think it's a real mistake to look at the picture in such a short-term way. Older gets here quicker than you expect.

[DogwoodFairy]

If the mother is the custodial parent, then her home IS the children's home, and in this case I'm pretty sure she is relying on that court ordered c/s payment to make the rent/mortgage payment.

Once the children are grown and the father is no longer responsible for providing financial support for the children, the mom will have some options. She can find work to make the payments, or she can sell the home and find something smaller that she can afford. Or she can go to DHS and apply for assistance. Its totally irrelevant what she does w/the home if she cant afford it later on. The point of c/s is to provide money so the children have a safe, stable home to live in while they are minors.

The courts cant ORDER someone to go get a job. No matter how much we would like them to.

[ginger_rodgers]

Ah, I see the sticking point here. This is an argument between "only today matters" and "tomorrow will surely come."

A mother's needs are not limited to the moment. She will need to retire; she may get sick; she will get old. In the US, we do not have universal lovely care for the elderly and disabled. We are responsible for providing for ourselves. You may have a big argument with that, but currently them's the facts.

Which means you can't pretend those costs don't exist. You can't say to a mother, "Go live in an apartment and pay rent forever, get a job and put off your education, work to the point of exhaustion because you're young and strong, and if you have so much money that you can save it, STOP and give that to your kids in the form of time with their daddy."

That kind of talk is anti-woman. We need to take care of ourselves first. And that includes taking care of our futures. When single mothers have got all that set, and then they want to give more to help a fella out and give more daddy time to their kids, great. Otherwise, I'd dismiss the suggestion out of hand.

[Marsupialmom]

I think both parents need to think.

I have a girlfriend that is upset because child support is being reduce. Since they were divorced ex had to pay for her schooling. Once she was done with her schooling program he didn't have to pay alimony any more. A couple of years ago they came to a agreement that she pay insurance through her work and he gave her the difference of her check each month. Child support was increased to cover that cost. She went from making maybe 5,000 a year to making 60,000 as a nurse.

Worked great until this ex's great job is no longer. His business went belly up. He is making 30,000 a year now.

She is throwing a fit because he doesn't have to pay much. She is mad that her child support has been reduce to match his new income. She has had to refinance her home and car because she cannot aford the payments because she used child support to make the payment. This is a woman completely capable of being self supporting. And completely capible on her own to get a nice house on her own income. She just lives in a better home because of child support that is no longer thier. That wasn't thinking on her part. She can't sell this house because of the market but she wasn't living in her means. And some how it is all his fault. Her mom asked her what would have happened if they were married. I have to agree. She failed to plan and do with in her means for the basic necessaties.

She has never put any money to the side. He has. Come to find out that he has put money away for college for kids. She has not. She has not done any planning for if he would die or become non-employeed due to illness.

I think there is a responceiblity on both parties to think and plan ahead. To put money aside. In most cases if you can't afford the car, house, et with out child support you need to scale back.

I have heard parents (male and female) complain that they have to by used hockey equipment instead of new because child support isn't big enough.....both these parents smoke, lady got her nails done, one mom was buying clothes from Lord Taylor (SP). Man had a new boat. Yes, I do scratch my head when you complain about child support not being enough and you do some of these extra things.

********************from a mom that ex that is 12 years behind in child support.

[~PurityLake~]

Originally Posted by Socks for Supper

Hm, I see. So as the CP, my son and I should be content renting a small apartment in a less than stellar area of town, or maybe a small run-down trailer in a park, while my ex is living in a 2500 sf, 3 story house. His house (the marital home) has 3 bedrooms/2 baths, a wrap-around deck, covered porch, hot tub, seperate 2 car garage, on 5 private acres in the woods.

Wow, I never said anything even remotely close to that.
I never said one parent should have extensive luxuries while the other parents does not. I simply stated that I think owning your (*disclaimer, your is not in reference to any particular individual) own home is a luxury, in my experience and opinion.

Originally Posted by Socks for Supper

You don't feel that my son's father is at least partially responsible for providing monetary support so that our son can enjoy BOTH homes as safe, comfortable homes that meet basic needs?

And again, I never said that, either.

[~PurityLake~]

Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers

Well, again, Purity Lake's view is the grasshopper's, not the ant's.

I don't see that as a grasshopper/ant issue.
Unless you are implying that a mother without a house has not planned well enough.
And that is just offensive to those not afforded the luxury of owning a home.

[phrogger]

Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers

Phrogger, it's a matter of basic arithmetic.

If the daddy skips out on his responsibility, someone must make it up. If the mother can, she will. However, that's money she can't spend on something else. Like, say, a mortgage and home maintenance that will provide for her housing when she's older.

I think you really need to drop this fantasy that all single mothers -- or even most single mothers -- can support and raise their families in the moment while looking after their own retirements and emergency needs on their own. The numbers are solidly against you.

Also, Phrogger, what happens when you're older? Have you got a home of your own now? If not, will you expect the public to house you, after telling your ex to forgo paying? If so, that's really no different from asking the public to support your husband's desire to pay less in the moment -- it's just a deferment. Or will your sons and their wives support you? If so, that'd be wonderful of them, but unless all four work together well and can afford to carry you as well as their own children, that can come at a real cost.

I think it's a real mistake to look at the picture in such a short-term way. Older gets here quicker than you expect.

Actually, that isn't what the topic was about, this father is NOT skipping out on anything, he is changing things yes, but not skipping out. This father is increasing his custodial time to where they are EQUAL which means they should be equal providers.

But in general, I don't own a home, but I have a retirement, I have savings etc. Home ownership isn't realistic when we don't know where we will live next year. I never said my ex didn't have to pay, I said IDEALLY he would live close by so he didn't have to pay. He would cover his expenses and I would cover mine. Co parenting, a situation where we BOTH are responsible for our own lives and that of the kids. If there was a major financial discrepincy, then he or I, (which ever made more) would help with extra things the kids might need, but I would never expect my ex to ensure that I had a large home to own to take care of myself when I was older. That is MY responsiblity. It was different when we married, but when that ended, our responsiblities were only towards the kids.


My whole point in everything, and it was aimed mainly towards the topic of this show, was that it is completely unfair to the kids mainly, but also to the father to penalize him to the point that he can't be a primary caregiver to his children because he is expected to provide a lifestyle to his ex wife and the kids that is unrealistic while trying to maintain a relationship with his kids. There is SO much more in life then just money. The kids need their dad so much more then the money in full. That doesn't mean that they don't need some support, but having a father is so much more important then all his extra cash.

[sillygrl]

I guess my question is, what is child support essentially for? The NCP usually pays CS because they no longer pay for the groceries/utilities/rent or mortgage/school costs whatever anymore and the CS is meant to cover the financial responsibility. I do think that amount should reflect the amount of actual time a parent has the child. If the child lives half of the time with each parent, then both parents equal out in the financial aspect.

And, I'm very sorry, but the mother has just as much responsibility as the father when the custody agreement is 50/50. Especially an educated woman. A woman sharing 50/50 custody with her ex has no right to expect the children's father to kill himself and work so much he never gets to see his children just so she can stay at home. It goes both ways. I really feel that if the tables were turned, and this was a woman who wanted to change careers so she could spend more time with her kids, the reaction would be different. Why does he not have any right to see his kids and she has every right to stay at home and be with them as much as she wants? The custody is 50/50!

[~PurityLake~]

Originally Posted by phrogger

Actually, that isn't what the topic was about, this father is NOT skipping out on anything, he is changing things yes, but not skipping out. This father is increasing his custodial time to where they are EQUAL which means they should be equal providers.

But in general, I don't own a home, but I have a retirement, I have savings etc. Home ownership isn't realistic when we don't know where we will live next year. I never said my ex didn't have to pay, I said IDEALLY he would live close by so he didn't have to pay. He would cover his expenses and I would cover mine. Co parenting, a situation where we BOTH are responsible for our own lives and that of the kids. If there was a major financial discrepincy, then he or I, (which ever made more) would help with extra things the kids might need, but I would never expect my ex to ensure that I had a large home to own to take care of myself when I was older. That is MY responsiblity. It was different when we married, but when that ended, our responsiblities were only towards the kids.


My whole point in everything, and it was aimed mainly towards the topic of this show, was that it is completely unfair to the kids mainly, but also to the father to penalize him to the point that he can't be a primary caregiver to his children because he is expected to provide a lifestyle to his ex wife and the kids that is unrealistic while trying to maintain a relationship with his kids. There is SO much more in life then just money. The kids need their dad so much more then the money in full. That doesn't mean that they don't need some support, but having a father is so much more important then all his extra cash.

[~PurityLake~]

Originally Posted by sillygrl

....the mother has just as much responsibility as the father when the custody agreement is 50/50. Especially an educated woman. A woman sharing 50/50 custody with her ex has no right to expect the children's father to kill himself and work so much he never gets to see his children just so she can stay at home. It goes both ways. I really feel that if the tables were turned, and this was a woman who wanted to change careers so she could spend more time with her kids, the reaction would be different. Why does he not have any right to see his kids and she has every right to stay at home and be with them as much as she wants? The custody is 50/50!

[Goodmom2008]

Originally Posted by phrogger

And again, expecting child support to pay for the MOTHERS home is relivant how? child support goes to providing for the kids, not the long term care of the mother. That would be alimony.

Child support covers the CHILD(REN)'S portion of the housing. If the mother chooses to own a house, it covers a portion of that since that involves HOUSING THE CHILD(REN).

[AlwaysByMySide]

Oy vey. It IS possible to have a lower mortgage payment than paying rent.

Okay, how about if the mother signs a lease for an apartment? Father/NCP decides to take a lower paying job and thus gives less child support. Mother and child(ren) possibly get evicted.

If child support is not partially for housing, what is it for? Britney Spears, Puff Daddy, lots of celebrities pays tens of thousands of dollars in child support. I doubt it's all going to food and clothes for their kids.

[AlwaysByMySide]

Originally Posted by phrogger

The kids need their dad so much more then the money in full. That doesn't mean that they don't need some support, but having a father is so much more important then all his extra cash.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of dads who say they want to spend more time with their kids in order to lower c/s payments. How many times has their been a post on this board about that?

[Goodmom2008]

Originally Posted by phrogger

The kids need their dad so much more then the money in full. That doesn't mean that they don't need some support, but having a father is so much more important then all his extra cash.

That is really simplistic. Financial support is an important part of parenting, as important as other aspects of parenting. Extra cash? No, just his part of the child support based on what he has clearly shown that he can make. If he wants to lower his income, he is the one who should live with the consequences, not his children. And his ex shouldn't be forced to pick up his slack. Especially since she had no say in his choice at all.