Just some random thoughts on CS
Hey everyone! There seems to have been more blogs and forum topics on CS lately than usual. I guess it's because of tax season. I have posted my personal thoughts on it before, but only as comments to others' posts. So I thought I'd do a blog on my personal opinion of CS today and see where it goes. Clearly, I am bored!
Disclaimer: I have no bios of my own. My DH pays CS to BM with about 35-40% parenting time per year. Laws in our state are NCP pays to CP a percentage directly related to difference in income no matter how much parenting time they get unless 50/50, then there is no CS.
My first issue is with the percentage of income thing. I think it punishes the more "successful" parent. Whether it be the NCP who works his ass off to pay his sky-high CS and also have a nice home/car/lifestyle of his own while the CP chooses to be a SAHM. Or vice versa, the CP who finishes school, advances her career and gets lower CS because the NCP is a deadbeat who can't keep a job. (BTW, I am using pronouns interchangeably here - I know there are plenty of CP dads and NCP moms). My point is that the costs of raising the child should be EVENLY split between the 2 parents.
Anyway, I think it would be more fair to use a calculator based on median cost of living/raising a child for wherever the kids primarily reside. As costs of living increase, then CS could be recalculated every 5 years or something like that. Basically, CS should be strictly that - support to counter the costs of raising a child that lives primarily with the other parent. It shouldn't matter what mom and dad earn or don't earn - the point is that the cost of raising a child is the same for everyone within a certain geographical region and that is what CS should be based on. Medical/daycare/private school tuition/extra-curriculars would all be decided on separately as those are individual needs that change from household to household.
Also, NCP should only have to pay a percentage of the costs relative to the amount of time child is with CP. When child is with NCP, they are covering 100% of the costs incurred on their time PLUS paying CS. For instance, let's say parenting time split is 60/40. Costs of raising a child are $1000/month. NCP already pays $400 of that because it is his time with child. So CP should have to pay $400. Then they evenly split the remaining $200. So NCP only pays $100/month in CS to CP, but they each pay $500 total towards the cost of raising their child each month. This is very simplified but I hope it shows what I am getting at. Both parents contribute equally to the financial burden of raising the child keeping in mind the amount of time the child spends at each home.
Some folks say that isn't fair because CS is meant to keep the kids living under a certain "standard" that they would be in an intact family. But I think that the "standard" of living is up to the parents. I know plenty of very wealthy people that live very frugally and, vice versa, plenty of average/below average earners that live well above their means. And again, if NCP is paying an exhorbitant amount of CS and still has a good amount of parenting time with the child, what about the child's standard of living while they are with NCP? I knew plenty of kids from divorced families growing up who lived with their mom in the house that she had gotten in the divorce while they slept on the couch in dad's crummy apartment and ate hot dogs on the weekends they were with him. Do you think those kids enjoyed going to "visit" dad? Nope, most of my friends in that situation stopped "visiting" dad by the time they were in high school. So yeah, standard of living at CP's doesn't change, but NCP's standard generally goes waaayyy down.
Now, let's say a couple is married for 10 years and wife chooses to be a SAHM with dad's blessing. After 10 years, dad leaves her with 2 minor kids still at home. THIS is a case for alimony/spousal support until mom can get the education/training she needs to support herself and minor kids based on a mutual decision she made with her DH at the time. NOT a case for sky-high CS. CS should never be used to get revenge on an ex.
Another thing I definitely have an issue with the whole tax issue of CS. In my state (and I think it's like this everywhere), CS is taken out of NCP's taxed income and directly given to CP tax free. I think CP should have to claim CS as income, especially if they are the ones claiming the child on taxes. Why should NCP have to pay taxes on money that his/her household never even sees? If they do every other year on claiming the child, then they could switch years on claiming the CS income as well. But we see it on these boards every year at tax time - parents claiming kids they shouldn't be claiming and the subsequent headaches with the IRS. If CP just had to claim the CS as taxable income and got the child credit while NCP got the break of having a lower taxable income, these issues would be resolved.
Anyway, that is all I can think of right now. What would you do differently if you could re-write the CS laws?
- asgoodasitgets's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
You are right, we will have
You are right, we will have to agree to disagree.
Parents who want to "buy" their children's affection can do so with or without CS. If that is your logic, then maybe the courts should just automatically give custody to the parent with higher income and be done with all the family court battles.
Not sure how living close to the NCP can minimize the costs of having to keep an extra room for the child. Where I live, my rent is based on the cost of a 2 bedroom home, NOT how often the 2nd bedroom gets used. As I wrote above, we have SD about 35-40% of the time. During that time we incur all of the costs of raising a child - utilities, clothing, food, entertainment. BM is not incurring those costs during that time - it works both ways. Rent is rent. Also, BM lived with her father and had NO housing costs/utilities for the first 4 years after she and DH split. The courts did not lower DH's CS because BM wasn't paying for housing yet DH was.
I agree with most of what you
I agree with most of what you said. I also have an issue with CS being based off of income, especially if it only takes the NCP's income into account. It allows the CP to live off of the child support and not support anything themselves. When the parents were married or together, that was a choice they made together. Now, the state allows that choice to continue until the child ages out and that is not right. Both parents should have to provide for the child. I also don't agree with parents claiming the children on the taxes if they aren't providing any support.
People who make that little
People who make that little also get the Earned Income Credit, I believe. If you have kids, it can add up to quite a lot. I did the calculations for our BM one year based on her part-time job income and one child and it was around $6000 that she would have gotten back. Plus, BM can file head of household, as she is CP. NCP's get to claim squat. "Just shut up and pay the taxes on your income, then hand it over, Dad" - that seems to be the attitude our government has.
If she is only making 3200 a
If she is only making 3200 a year, she most definitely will get the EIC with claiming of the kids. And it is sizeable. Considering she didn't make money. The EIC is supposed to assist with people with dependents who work and earn money but not enough for the federal poverty level/standard of living. Even making $30,000 a year with a certain number of dependents can result in a sizeable EIC.
Justkeepsteppin: I totally
Justkeepsteppin: I totally understand your issue with your ex and claiming your BS. Obviously, NCP's should only be able to claim the child if they are paying their CS. In my example, you would have no extra income to claim from CS and get to claim your son every year, as you should.
My DH's situation is effed up, though. He and BM (never married) made a personal agreement on CS. They never had a problem. A year and a half later, BM got mad and took him to court. They set his CS at slightly higher than what he had been paying BM, backdated it to the time of their separation plus threw in some medical bills so DH was automatically in arrears for about $2500 before he even made his first "official" payment. In our state, you cannot claim a child if you are in arrears at all. If he had even been able to claim SD one year since then, his arrears would be caught up completely because the state would have taken his return to pay them. As it is, he gets no refund. So, he continues to pay his small monthly contribution to his arrears. BM, however, bitches constantly that his is "behind on CS" to anyone who will listen. She doesn't seem to understand that she is getting a way better deal with him remaining in arrears as she gets $1000's back on taxes every year with her child credit.
I don't agree with the
I don't agree with the government or anyone else expecting parents to contribute to the education of their adult children at all. I filled out my FAFSA my senior year and my parents just laughed when they saw their expected contribution. Sorry kid, they said, but we did it for 18 years - you're on your own now. So, I worked my way through school on my own, earning scholarships and grants along the way. Why is it my parents had that option as they were married at the time, yet divorced parents are forced to pay?
OK, I agree wholeheartedly
OK, I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you are saying EXCEPT CS based on income. In some instances, I do think the CP is entitled to more of the NCP's income, like in the example I used in my OP. But what about the kids whose parents were never even married, married for a very short time or conceived via a one night stand? That is where you get women getting knocked up by the richest guy she can find so that she is financially set for the rest of her life. If you take CS based on income out of the equation and both parents were expected to contribute equally to raising a child, I think you'd see a lot less out of wedlock babies being born and maybe even less divorces.
Like I said to HRNYC, if it is so damn important that the child's "lifestyle" not be affected, then courts should automatically just award custody to the bigger wage earner. In my opinion, if your parents just got a divorce, your lifestyle is being affected by bigger things than you might not get that new Ipad you've been eyeing. And no, I do not agree that kids are entitled to share in their parent's success. They are entitled to shelter, clothing, food, medical care, education, and obviously love, but material possessions? Nope. Now if the parent wants to be nice and provide them with nice things, that is up to the parent - just like in intact families.
Dang. Wished you'd numbered
Dang. Wished you'd numbered your "points," so that I could cross-reference more easily. Grousing. Good topic. Lots of different experiences, different states, different countries.
Thankfully, life has changed since the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's ... decades ago Mom's were generally CP, Dad's paid CS (or not) with Mom's withholding visitation because Dad got a girlfriend or looked at her funny.
My state was sued by a Dad and he won a few million for the "presumption of mother's as best choice CP" or some such. I agree. That was the death knell for Mom's as sole legal/physical with Dad's getting visitation. Now, it is presumed 50:50 and limited child support.
Our state uses a CS calculator spreadsheet and both CP and NCP pay the same proportion of CS. Have 100% sole legal/physical for BS. Took Ex-DH back to court ONCE in 12 years. CS was set when he made $ 70K and then he was making double that with no adjustment ($150K). Significant difference. Child had some special needs so I was tapping everyone for loans to pay for therapy and tutoring -- early intervention was key issue. New CO as a result.
Now the last tax info I got from him is that he is making over $ 450,000 with bonuses and has not changed child support payments, nor paid the "medical payments over the first $250" from CO. HOWEVER, he is married to the "Wicked Witch/SM From The East with The Mystery Twins," and I figure that is enough on his plate.
And, ex-DH and I have a mainly amicable relationship where he is trying to be a better Dad to BS-13, so I will not rock the boat at this time. BS has a roof, utilities, food, a good school --- so he's good on CS in my mind.
I will admit that some of the posts that I read here regarding CS are outlandish. I almost want to cry "crew" and then I read that they live in NJ or KY or some village in the UK. Seriously ? I see both sides of this fence and wish that there was a bit more uniformity.
Yeah, uniformity would be
Yeah, uniformity would be nice. I think CS should be federally mandated. That way it is the same guidelines no matter where you live or where kids reside. States would not benefit from CS so there would be a lot less corruption of the system as well.