or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Blended and Step Family Parenting › spinoff: where the money goes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

spinoff: where the money goes - Page 2

post #21 of 88
I don't think all cps are wasting cs. Some are, like mine and some of the pps. I am so glad that there is not alimony in our state, especially when biomom has live in boyfriends that come and go. Recently one boyfriend was paying $300 a month to live with her. This was his share of room,board,utilities. So using her own reasoning for room and board etc, that means Dss's should only be $300 a month leaving him $700 a month for clothing, medical copays, entertainment, school fees etc. When we asked her about this she said all of the cs goes to make the house payment. Seems to me, boyfriend should have been paying more and mom should have been paying some of her own house payment. Soon there will be a total of 6 people living in that house. Four will be working adults. Does this mean that Dss will have more discretionary money for his use? I doubt it. I think a lot of our child support will be going to the new baby living there who it Dss's nephew from his half sister.
post #22 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleyhalfmoon View Post
Mama41, are you talking about decent benefits and such for the person paying child support? If you are, may I bring something to your attention that you may not be aware of? Medical benefits usually arent' too much of a problem, as long as the noncustodial parent can get it through his job, but when applying for medical insurance assistance, housing assistance, food stamps, and child care vouchers, they count ALL the income you make, but do not take into consideration the money that goes out, paying for child support.
Sorry, hhm, I thought pinksprkly was saying her entire family had an income of like $18K/yr, and at that income level, depending on where you live, there can be some pretty good benefits. Medical benefits...well, that really depends on where you're employed and what state you're in. I have a friend who's a teacher, and his insurance is OK, but to add a child is outrageously expensive. People go on CHIP instead, and CHIP here is actually very good.

I actually think it's appropriate to count outgoing c/s as income. It's money you make for the support of family children; they just aren't the children living in that home, or living in that home fulltime. You count the rest of your earned income that goes to support kids as income; the CP also counts her earned income that goes for support of kids.
post #23 of 88
But do you pay half your paycheck to your daughter? Cause essentially that is what a lot of NCP's end up doing.
post #24 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSMa View Post
I know I'm going to get jumped on here.. but I'm sorry... my personal opinoin houseing costs shoudn't count into figuring out C/S. The NCP has to provide the extra bedroom same as the CP and we certainly don't get help for it.
Well, let's see. My ex pays $600 for a 2br duplex, which around here is an incredible deal -- most 1brs go for about that. But let's say that if he weren't a dad, he'd be able to find a similar steal in a 1 br. His housing cost still wouldn't be more than about an extra $150/mo for her. She sleeps over there once a week, and he feeds her two meals a week. That's his child-related non-med/daycare expenses as an NCP. Mine, about $1335.

In my state, if the NCP is actually providing a home for the child, and the child's spending a significant amount of time there, child support is adjusted accordingly, because it's assumed the costs are higher. If it's shared custody, they calculate c/s for each as if each was the NCP, and the wealthier parent pays the difference between the two.

One thing you might consider is that many, many NCPs do not go to the trouble of keeping an extra bedroom for kids who sleep over twice a month. The kids sleep in the living room, or the dad gives up his bed. When my mom was an NCP, she didn't keep a 2br apt, though after my brother moved back in with her, she did. Nor did my dad, when they were first separated and she was custodial, even though he had enough money for a 2 or 3 br. My brother and I just didn't stay over there often enough to warrant it; we slept in the living room. When the states set up the rules, they deal with average circumstances, not "go the extra mile" circumstances (which is why I had to fight my lawyer to get "yes we will send her to college" provisions in our draft of the decree, which I'd likely have lost if we'd gone to trial).

Quote:
What makes me sad... I see DSD in ratty second hand clothes at times, but yet her Mother buys a new Coach bag just about every month, plus travels every other weekend 3 hours away with the lovely gas costs to visit her boyfriend, then whines to us we aren't giving her enough money. Stop buying the outrageously priced purses every month?
JSMa...you're making a packet of unwarranted assumptions, I think, and it's going to end up setting up unnecessary opposition.

Of course your DSD is in ratty second hand clothes. I dress mine that way, too, for everyday. So do my married SAHM friends with six-figure household incomes. There's no point in dressing up kids who're running around playing. Mine's currently outside playing in the dirt. I guarantee you she's not out there in Laura Ashley.

Unless you've seen the receipts, you don't know where those Coach bags are coming from, whether they're real, or who paid for them. Nor do you know who's paying for the gas.

Do I think my ex is paying enough? No, because he's not paying half the cost of raising dd, and frankly I think he ought to be paying for the childrearing inequity, too, but that's not in the realm of political reality. So if I thought it'd do any good, I'd be complaining to him, too. Do I also spend some of the money I earn on nice things for myself? Sure. Am I spending the c/s money on me? No. All of it goes to dd's expenses, and, as mentioned, it does not cover half.

Now, if an outside observer were intent on framing that picture as "evil mom spends lavish c/s on herself and whines for more", all the pieces would look to be there. Evil mom thinks dad doesn't pay enough, dad pays a big lump of money each month, evil mom has nice stuff, kid is dressed in ratty clothes. But does that picture fit reality? No. And if you assume it does, with prejudice and without facts, that's liable to lead to significant and unnecessary friction between two women involved in the life of one child.

The bottom line: It is likely best not to take your frustration about lack of money out on the custodial mother. (The only person on this board I've heard who's clearly justified in that is angilyn, and frankly, even though the ex's behavior is despicable to the point of crime, at bottom it was her husband's responsibility to make sure his credit was disentangled after divorce, and her responsibility to check that he had no major financial bogeymen before getting her own finances involved with his.) Why? First because it's a means of deflecting frustration with your man; second because it's bound to create tension for the child; third because it reflects frustration with the inability to control someone else's behavior instead of deciding what you'll do about your own; and fourth because in the end, you have the power to control your own money. If you don't want to help support another child, nobody but you is making you do it. So to jump in voluntarily, and then complain that it doesn't go the way you like, but refuse either to get out or make peace with it -- to me this is a way of wilfully making unhappiness. I don't see the payoff for anyone. If you just personally don't like her, that's another story, but don't tangle it up with the money.

Maybe there should be a book for prospective stepmoms that lays out in very blunt terms what they may be buying themselves. Sort of a consumer warning label. I mean I can see from here what you guys go through, and I'd never do it. In-laws are bad enough.
post #25 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSMa View Post
But do you pay half your paycheck to your daughter? Cause essentially that is what a lot of NCP's end up doing.
Around here you need to be supporting an awful lot of kids to pay half your income (and if I had that many kids, then yes, I'd be paying half and more). The state-mandated amount is around 20% of the NCP's income for one child, 33% for two, after the NCP's taxes and some basic living expenses are paid, including childcare. If you don't make enough money to support yourself and also pay 20% of your income, in other words, the CP won't collect 20% of your income. That's not an unusual set of state policies.

Pension money the NCP can't touch immediately is never counted. My xh gets about $1K/mo paid into his retirement account. It doesn't get counted as income, even though he'll have the full advantage of the money and its yield in retirement. My retirement investments would be counted if we did things the other way around, because I'm not employed by a large institution that puts the money away for me; I'm self-employed and, if dumb, could choose not to save for retirement, so technically the money is "available" to me.
post #26 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinksprklybarefoot View Post
I should clarify - we make more than that. We are just putting a lot into savings every month. Pharmacy school is about $80,000, and we want to be able to pay for most of it out of pocket. It will pay off in the end, I know. Plus it is teaching me excellent frugal money management skills that will hopefully become second nature by the time I am making the big bucks.
No doubt. They definitely work for it, but the pharm grads here do very, very well. Good luck --
post #27 of 88
I'm not making assumptions... DSD's Mom feels the need to brag and show me all her coash purses she buys herself. She also loves to brag that she is lving rent free with her Mom.

You should count yourself as lucky for living in a state that seems to make many considerations... if you read here not all states are like that. DP has ONE daughter... oer 40% of his pay goes to her because he pays half her living expenses as determined by the governement, and half of daycare.

Also... it's a law here that you must provide the child their own bedroom for overnight stays. It doesn't matter how many nights a month you have them... the CP can fight it and we could lose overnight visitation. We have no choice but to get a bigger place. This has nothing to do with going the extra mile... just being a parent.
post #28 of 88
I actually did a credit check on Dh before we were married and his credit was excellent. I also did a background check as well. I also had him make a full disclosure about his personal debt, bank accounts etc. Again, he was stellar. The money issues about bio mom's credit cards only came up within the last 6 or 7 months. So I did check, I'm not naive.

I don't think there is a payoff being a stepmom and I think that is what is being said. It is thankless for the most part and we do have a lot of frustrations, many of which are justified. My payoff is that I get to live with the nicest, sweetest man I have ever met. The downside is that I see Dss with all the problems he has and a mom who is financially and emotionally irresponsible. I can't help, I can't complain, I can only watch the mess. Dh in the past has tried to get custody and failed. We could try again but in the long run I think that would hurt Dss, who like most kids adore mom.

I understand the comments that a pp made about the coach bags. I can recognise a real one from a fake. I can tell the difference between Walmart Clothes and upscale clothes. I can have an opinion about how bio mom is spending her money when Dss doesn't have his fees for school. And when I see her solar nails, my teeth just clench because the upkeep for those nails for two weeks would have paid his fine arts fees. She also frequents tanning booths, hair salons for dye and perm, and has very expensive clothes, car and lives in the most expensive part of town with the highest taxes. Most of us on a school teacher's budget that is supplemented with cs would not live a champagne lifestyle. We would shop at Target, or Ross, brown bag it for lunch and do our own hair and nails. We would lay out in the sun for a tan (though that is not good for our skin, but neither is a tanning booth). We would buy economy cars and save on gas. We would find an area to live where the taxes aren't so high. That is what Dh and I do. We don't mind doing it a bit. And that is why we have the half of dental copays, the school fees and other needed things for Dss. Her spending habits are why she doesn't. We recently moved to a new three bedroom home. We wanted Dss when he came to have more space and a gameroom. So we have the added expense of a bigger house with more utilities and more taxes. I am not complaining about it, but it means more money on our side being spent so that Dss can have a decent life while with us. Dh has started taking the bus to save on gas and to just economise. Again, this is not complaining, this is just life and I wish bio mom could wise up and see what she needs to do to play this game of life in such a way to benefit Dss.
post #29 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleyhalfmoon View Post
For example, a couple years ago, I lost my job and my Hubby was fully supporting our family, as well as paying child support. For expenses references, we live just North of NYC and for our three bedroom apartment (which we're required to have, in order to have my stepdaughter for overnight visitations), we pay $2081 a month. Since my Hubby made roughly between $4500 a month at that time (gorss- don't forget taxes) and he was paying $1000 a month in child support and $1200 a month in alimony, plus 80% of daycare for my stepdaughter (lets forget for a moment that, at that point in time, my son was also in daycare), you can see the problem, moneywise. You would think we would have qualified for some kind of assistance, right? You would think that with $219 a month for our living expenses, we would have qualified for SOMETHING, right? We were told repeatedly by all these places that, nope, our entire income is what counts and, quite frankly, we just make too much money to qualify. We ended up borrowing from my Father-in-Law (), but if we didn't have that to "fall back on", I don't know what we would have done. Any kind of government help is simply not availablew for people paying child support. The system is broken.
Oh, HHM, I just reread more carefully and realized you're in NY. Yes, things are going to be tougher there; I think they are generally in states with high welfare loads. Did you ever talk to your state rep? I'm sure there are other families in this circumstance right now. Although, frankly, I'm sure the rep and maybe even the rep's staff would say or get, "Well, why is that our problem? The guy had more kids than he could support, and she took a gamble on having a kid with him but didn't save anything for a rainy day -- she knew he couldn't help out if she lost her job. Tell him to stop having kids." But the concern there is chronic offenders, people who'll get on the system and never come off. I bet there are caucuses you could work through, esp. now, to get some kind of temp aid, 3-6 mo maybe, for families in your circumstance, esp. homeowners. Nobody wants more foreclosures because of something like that.
post #30 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama41 View Post
I actually think it's appropriate to count outgoing c/s as income. It's money you make for the support of family children; they just aren't the children living in that home, or living in that home fulltime. You count the rest of your earned income that goes to support kids as income; the CP also counts her earned income that goes for support of kids.
That might make more sense if the NCP could count the kids they support with that money. The CP gets the money, doesn't have to claim it as income, gets to claim the kid for aid purposes and gets the tax deduction (in our state this is standard -- DH was told no tax deduction unless she voluntarily gives it to us).

Also, sometimes the amount going out (as we discussed here) is way more than one would spend on a child in-house, so the number of children listed as being supported is way off from a realistic scenario. See, for example, JSMa, whose DH pays 40% for one kid (so 80% for two if her new baby is to have the same resources!), and has to provide a bedroom as well.

Ours isn't quite as far off as that, but DH pays the same amount regardless of her income or his parenting time. So, when he had them 50% of the time, he still paid full CS, as he does on EOW, as he does now at long distance, and as he would if he never saw his kids again. It's a big financial disincentive to see them at times! When he had them 50/50, she would unenroll them from daycare if he had a full week so he'd have to pay, even though CS should cover it. Not all states are like yours.
post #31 of 88
We don't get to count Dss on our income taxes either. It would be nice if we could. We also pay full cs in the summer even if he lives with us for the 6 week mandated time. He hasn't wanted to do that, so it is not an issue. So we have to show our full income for the IRS but don't get to claim dss as a deduction. Bio mom does not have to show cs as income but gets to claim dss. This one I don't really get.
post #32 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by violet_ View Post
That might make more sense if the NCP could count the kids they support with that money. The CP gets the money, doesn't have to claim it as income, gets to claim the kid for aid purposes and gets the tax deduction (in our state this is standard -- DH was told no tax deduction unless she voluntarily gives it to us).

Also, sometimes the amount going out (as we discussed here) is way more than one would spend on a child in-house, so the number of children listed as being supported is way off from a realistic scenario. See, for example, JSMa, whose DH pays 40% for one kid (so 80% for two if her new baby is to have the same resources!), and has to provide a bedroom as well.

Ours isn't quite as far off as that, but DH pays the same amount regardless of her income or his parenting time. So, when he had them 50% of the time, he still paid full CS, as he does on EOW, as he does now at long distance, and as he would if he never saw his kids again. It's a big financial disincentive to see them at times! When he had them 50/50, she would unenroll them from daycare if he had a full week so he'd have to pay, even though CS should cover it. Not all states are like yours.

Bolding is mine.... exactly the point I was trying to make in a previous thread... the system is plain not fair to ANYONE involved and needs a lot of work re-done to it.

I think the system in place now mostly stems from "deadbeats" and to help deter that... with more and more involved parents, it only seems to hurt everyone trying to do the best they can for their kids.

I know a man who was just in jail for not paying his C/S. He wasn't paying it because he didn't want to... he didn't have it! The court ordered him to pay $3,000/month because he was a chiropractor that had his own business. They didn't take into consideration that he had insurance to pay, nor that since it was a private business, this quarter's earnings may not be anywhere close to last quarter's earnings. He wasn't making the same amount of money, and it did him no good to try to get a reduction because in PA they go by last quarter's earnings, and take nothing else into consideration.

Every state varies so incredibly much on laws. Kind of ridiculous really....


EDIT: Thought of more... circumstances change everything... if parents were still together their finacnial status and what they are able to provide fluctuates all the time depending on their jobs and crisis... C/S never takes that into consideration...

And of course DSD will get more "money" right off the bat then the new baby... I cannot fathom I will spend over $700 a month on clothes and food. Especially as the food will be free. lol Again, I'm not one of those to factor in housing costs and utilites because it's something that we would have to provide for ourselves otherwise.

We adjust and work with it... just as everyone should, but that just doesn't seem to be the case... there is one set amount that must be paid to the CP regardless of any other circumstances. Just seems odd to me...
post #33 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSMa View Post
I'm not making assumptions... DSD's Mom feels the need to brag and show me all her coash purses she buys herself. She also loves to brag that she is lving rent free with her Mom.
JSMa, and you're rising to the bait why?

Look, you don't know what really goes on with her. Until you go home with her, and live with her, you don't know. And in the end, it doesn't matter. You're making the active choice to be involved in this. I mean if you like aggravation as a sport, I guess it's a good idea. But....

ah, I see.

Several years ago I was on a listserv with some teachers. Teachers have one of the last functioning unions in the country. A teacher was very upset because his classroom was hot in the summer and the kids were sweating; in fact he was so hot and sweaty he could barely teach. The kids couldn't learn. The principal refused to do anything about it. The teacher complained a lot and the other teachers joined in to commiserate. They all knew the problem, it was terrible.

I watched this for a while, incredulous, and then said, "Why don't you bring in an air conditioner and plug it in? They cost about $200-300. If the principal says unplug it, offer to pay the electric. If he unplugs it, call a reporter and tell him the kids are so hot they can't learn, and the school won't let you spend your own money to cool off the room."

You would have thought I'd said, "Why don't you rape a student or two?" Teachers from all over the country hopped on me. "We don't have the power!" they said. "We'd get fired! Nobody would hire us!"

I said, "But you have a tremendously powerful union, and, even better, an organizing network. You all seem to have the same problem in summer, and I can't think of any other business in America that says no air conditioning, it's good for you to be hot. If a tenth of you guys don't show up for work one day, the whole ed system falls apart. You guys are in the catbird seat. I bet with a one-day strike, you could have the problem licked in a month -- OK, a few years, it's government."

Eventually I quit, because I realized they didn't want to solve the problem. They wanted it to be magically solved for them, which wasn't going to happen, so instead they'd have a good time complaining.

JSMa, I would find a good hundred grand and pay it if it meant my child and I never had to be involved with my ex again on financial or legal matters, and I'd consider it money well spent. He's a loose cannon and absolutely not worth the trouble. The exposure is way too big. But I don't have that choice. The law says I have no choice, because I did what was in many respects a dumb thing five years ago. You, on the other hand -- you have a choice about whether or not to involve yourself in your husband's ex's money business. Even now, even pregnant, you have a choice.

Quote:
You should count yourself as lucky for living in a state that seems to make many considerations... if you read here not all states are like that. DP has ONE daughter... oer 40% of his pay goes to her because he pays half her living expenses as determined by the governement, and half of daycare.
Frankly, this seems to me equitable. I don't see that the dad's income is germane. If you make a kid, then barring disability and brief ups and downs, you should be prepared to pay half the cost of raising that child. If you don't think it's likely you'll be able to do that without grinding hardship, and no one else is offering to do it longterm for you, I think you probably shouldn't have children.

Quote:
Also... it's a law here that you must provide the child their own bedroom for overnight stays. It doesn't matter how many nights a month you have them... the CP can fight it and we could lose overnight visitation. We have no choice but to get a bigger place. This has nothing to do with going the extra mile... just being a parent.
(sigh) I really think it's unnecessary if the child doesn't live there. I understand from other boards why they do it -- a shocking number of NCPs really make no accommodation for the kids at all. But I think it's a case of bureaucratic overkill. I guess the alternative is equally unpleasant, and that's having a social worker come check your place and certify that even though there's no bedroom for the kid, there's adequate space and setup for the child to stay over. I'm sorry you have to go through that.
post #34 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by violet_ View Post
That might make more sense if the NCP could count the kids they support with that money. The CP gets the money, doesn't have to claim it as income, gets to claim the kid for aid purposes and gets the tax deduction (in our state this is standard -- DH was told no tax deduction unless she voluntarily gives it to us).
Again, if the guy wants it, then this is something that the guy's lawyer should be negotiating in the original decree, and something the guy should push for if the lawyer neglects it. If there is in fact a rough equity in childrearing expenses, courts will generally divide the tax benefits.

Quote:
Also, sometimes the amount going out (as we discussed here) is way more than one would spend on a child in-house, so the number of children listed as being supported is way off from a realistic scenario. See, for example, JSMa, whose DH pays 40% for one kid (so 80% for two if her new baby is to have the same resources!), and has to provide a bedroom as well.
Again, for state-related issues, you have to look at average circumstances. Courts are also inclined to look at marriage, divorce, and reproduction as voluntary.

I'll repeat what I told JSMa, which is that in general, if you cannot pay half the cost of raising a child and no one else is volunteering to do it for you, I think you probably should not have children.

Quote:
Ours isn't quite as far off as that, but DH pays the same amount regardless of her income or his parenting time. So, when he had them 50% of the time, he still paid full CS, as he does on EOW, as he does now at long distance, and as he would if he never saw his kids again. It's a big financial disincentive to see them at times! When he had them 50/50, she would unenroll them from daycare if he had a full week so he'd have to pay, even though CS should cover it. Not all states are like yours.
This is a matter you'd need to take up with your state legislators. Personally, I think that "half of expenses", "factor in actual amount of time the kid lives with the NCP", and "factor in restrictions on the CP's work schedule and resulting income loss" are all reasonable.
post #35 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama41 View Post
Frankly, this seems to me equitable. I don't see that the dad's income is germane. If you make a kid, then barring disability and brief ups and downs, you should be prepared to pay half the cost of raising that child. If you don't think it's likely you'll be able to do that without grinding hardship, and no one else is offering to do it longterm for you, I think you probably shouldn't have children.

Yes... half of what it costs to raise the child... NOT HALF HIS PAY. I think we see things differently... So you are saying with each child a person has half their paycheck should go to them? So after 2 kids one already has no money leftover for themselves and the house?

I totally understand being responsible and paying for your child... I don't find the numbers they come up with for all NCP's to pay quite logical.

I do not think anyone with kids spends their whole paychecks on just the kids... they obviously have to take care of themselves too, plus house costs, cars...
post #36 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSMa View Post
Yes... half of what it costs to raise the child... NOT HALF HIS PAY. I think we see things differently... So you are saying with each child a person has half their paycheck should go to them? So after 2 kids one already has no money leftover for themselves and the house?

I totally understand being responsible and paying for your child... I don't find the numbers they come up with for all NCP's to pay quite logical.

I do not think anyone with kids spends their whole paychecks on just the kids... they obviously have to take care of themselves too, plus house costs, cars...
I am with you on this one. I don't think that the cost of things like rent, electricity, gas for your car constitute "the cost of raising a child." If you hadn't had a child would you be a shut in living with your parents? This is what I was trying to get at in my original reaction to the costs Mama41 outlined. I'm not disputing that single moms have these costs. Or that there may be a need for a larger place, etc. But 100% of your rent is not part of the cost of raising a child. Clearly, the courts do not agree with my opinion on this.

In terms of the "each party owes 1/2 or they shouldn't have a child" argument, is that why most people decide to get married? So they can have some one to split expenses with? If your partner doesn't pay their 1/2 it's over? I always dreamed of being a mom. If my then DH had told me at the time he would never pay once cent toward supporting a child, it wouldn't have changed my mind about becoming a parent.

To me a big problem with the whole CS system is that no matter what amount they deem fair, the parties are at opposing ends of the spectrum. The NCP starts at 20% while many CP's feel entitled to the same 100% they had during the relationship---it's unlikely you're ever going to get to a happy median.
post #37 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkj323 View Post
If you hadn't had a child would you be a shut in living with your parents? This is what I was trying to get at in my original reaction to the costs Mama41 outlined.
kkj, I was a childless, single adult for nearly 20 years before I became a mother, and I lived on my own or with boyfriends from the time I was a sophomore in college. I can tell you to within about $75/mo what it would cost me to live on my own, in a style that pleased me, without a child. In fact, I outlined that a couple pages back. The difference between that housing cost -- which includes mortgage, assoc dues (incl. water, trash, maintenance), and power -- and my current housing costs is due entirely to the fact that this is housing for a child to grow up in. No kid, and I'd be back where I was, happily.

That's why the difference is part of the cost of raising her. No kid, no additional housing cost to the tune of $650-800/mo, which still puts me well below national housing costs. As a single, childless adult, I lived pretty cheap. But that situation isn't so good for a kid.

My xh's additional housing cost is on the order of $125/mo, if we assume he'd be able to get a super deal on a 1br. Actually, before we married, he lived in a large 2br apt by himself, and paid exactly what he pays now; he'd done that for six years, and his income was lower than it is now, even counting c/s. But let's be generous and assume he'd be more frugal now: $125/mo attributable to dd, then.

(Incidentally, this is a trope that gets taken up in urban planning fights all the time. At this point, most people do not have children living at home. Only about 24% do. Childless adults are willing to put up with more crime, less green space, fewer sidewalks, fewer garages, more noise, more transience, and higher density than families with children are, on the whole. Neighborhood school quality isn't a concern for them, either, and they tend to want more excitement -- more nightclubs, more bars. They don't want to live in suburbia, and frankly, I don't blame them. But there's a reason why people with children want it; it's because it's good for children. Is suburbia trouble-free for kids? No, of course not. But in general, space, safety, quiet, stability, neighbors you know, a chance to garden and ride bikes, and good local schools are things parents want for their kids. The parents are protecting children who are still small and vulnerable. We're just coming to name and acknowledge that split in my town when it comes to planning.)
post #38 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSMa View Post
Yes... half of what it costs to raise the child... NOT HALF HIS PAY. I think we see things differently... So you are saying with each child a person has half their paycheck should go to them? So after 2 kids one already has no money leftover for themselves and the house?

I totally understand being responsible and paying for your child... I don't find the numbers they come up with for all NCP's to pay quite logical.

I do not think anyone with kids spends their whole paychecks on just the kids... they obviously have to take care of themselves too, plus house costs, cars...
JSMa, check the math.

You have two kids. Half-cost for each is $1300. Your bill is $2600.

Does this mean that $2600 is the maximum you're allowed to earn? No.

If you make $2600/mo, you're in trouble. Solution: Make more money. If it's routinely going to be too tough to make enough to live on while paying half the kid's costs, don't have a kid. Because if you don't pay your share, that means someone else has to. The only reasonable exceptions I can see to this are disability and someone else's agreeing, before you have that kid, to pay your share. With the understanding that if that person flakes, you're still left holding the bag.

If you made the kid, and you're not ill, you pay half. Mother or father, CP or NCP. If you can't, then understand that you screwed up, but this is a non-dischargeable responsibility you took on, and you'll have to cut corners yourself in order to provide for the kid you made. Meantime, don't have any more kids, unless someone else is offering to pay and is actually in a likely position to do it longterm.

If someone else in the form of a grandmother or boyfriend shows up and gives to the child, does this discharge the parent's responsibility? No. This is a gift to the child over and above the parents' responsibility. Now, a responsible mother in your DSD's situation, if in fact there's no rent being paid, will take the support and save it for the child. Does that mean the father is now giving the child savings? No. It is the same as if the grandmother put the money in the bank herself, directly. The grandmother is giving the child savings. The father is still paying what he is responsible for.

I am always surprised by these endless "but I shouldn't have to pay/but he shouldn't have to pay" arguments based on other people's generosity. Your children are your children. Presumably you had the sex on purpose. It's inconceivable to me that people should look for stand-ins for the support like that, whether they're male or female, CP or NCP.
post #39 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama41 View Post
JSMa, check the math.

You have two kids. Half-cost for each is $1300. Your bill is $2600.

Does this mean that $2600 is the maximum you're allowed to earn? No.

If you make $2600/mo, you're in trouble. Solution: Make more money.
Gee, I wish I'd thought of that!

Seriously, mama41, don' you think that if we could, in most cases, we would? What about the custodial parents who complain that they don't get enough money from the other parent to support their child. Should they "just make more money", too? I only wish it were that simple.
post #40 of 88
Generally speaking, those who pay CS always think it's too much and those who receive it think it's never enough.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Blended and Step Family Parenting › spinoff: where the money goes