CS Thoughts...
My best friend is also a member of the step-hell club, although her ss is a pretty good kid and they have very minimal problems with the BM except this-
Their situation is a lot like mine, BM and DH were banging in high school and poof comes a little bundle of joy. They don't make it past the first month before breaking up but stayed very civil. Ss was 50/50 with no cs from age 2 to about 6 when my friend got with him. Both parents worked low paying jobs and split major costs down the middle. Well shortly after friend and dh get married he decides he needs to get a college degree to support the family. So for the next 5 years they are poor. And I mean pooooooorrrrrr while he pays for school. Like pb&j for dinner 3 nights a week poor. So he gets his engineering degree and gets a good job at an oil company. Meanwhile bm still lives with her grandparents and works part time at the dollar tree.
So about a month after he gets his new job he gets hit with a cs mod, still 50/50 custody. They go to mediation and he is now ordered to pay 600 a mo and 80% of all expenses like camp and sports.
Friend is beside herself angry about it. She said it feels like anyone that tries to better themselves is punished by the child support office. I've never thought of it like that but it does seem true.
Anyone experienced a situation like this? Are you just SOL if you want to be a productive member of society?
- onwednesdayswewearpink's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
They had a court order in
They had a court order in place from when paternity was established as a baby. Here you can file with DHS at any time to raise child support, it goes through them and you can bypass the court.
How is helping to support
How is helping to support your child a punishment?
When I moved back to NYC from NC, my salary skyrocketed. The huge increase in my salary made it possible for CS to decrease by more than 50%. We had a review done every years. Each review resulted in a decrease because my salary continued to increase.
It never crossed my mind to be anger,bitter,of feel like I was being punished. I made more than my son's dad so the fact that I would be responsible for meeting most of his financial needs was a no brainer.
BM not going after CS while dad had a low paying job and was attending school (even though they are in a state that allows child support with 50/50)was a wonderful thing. Now that he is in a better place financially, she wants him to do what the state requires. Hopefully she will take steps to improve her earning potential so that they are both equally (or close to it) providing for their son.
But isn't he responsible for
But isn't he responsible for supporting his son in his home every other week?
Everyone should be
Everyone should be responsible for their own asses. She was contented all these years living on a low wage now she's going to benefit on someone else's coat tails. Friend's DH wasn't supported financially or emotionally by BM during his return to school and now she's going to profit from his hard work?! Unbelievable. I think it's absolutely atrocious that CS works that way. BM will continue to work with little stress at Dollar tree while dad works as an engineer, probably more thatn 40 hours a week and he's still going to be responsible for his child 50/50. Talk about an unfair system that rewards the undeserving. I would be upset too.
The system isn't rewarding
The system isn't rewarding the mother.
If she were just interested in the money, she would have had his butt in court from day one. It does not matter how poor he was. If she had gone to court, he would have had to come up with something.
There are plenty of mothers out there who work hard and/or go back to school in order to increase their earning power while the dads work low paying jobs or find women to live off of. When those women go to CS court, the amount of CS ordered is a joke because the dads have such low salaries. Is that fair? Is that a case of the system punishing the responsible parents?
They had a court order from
They had a court order from when ss was a baby, both parents made about the same and there was no child support in place. 50/50
Way to think that mom's are
Way to think that mom's are entitled to something more with 50/50 and similar incomes. Did you pay attention to OP?!
Just another reason why I
Just another reason why I NEVER wanted a legal relationship with with a man with minor children.
.
DH made much less money than BM - but the legal system required him to hand over tons of money to her because she had a vagina. Fortunately I met DH long after SS was an adult.
We have a WINNER!! Give the
We have a WINNER!! Give the lady a box of chocolates!
When ex fiancé and I started
When ex fiancé and I started dating his cs was 350 a month. BM had reliable car ex fiancé took care of. Apparently it wasn't sporty enough. She got a brand new car with the same amount as cs. I had to giggle when it was repossessed a couple of months later. She was young and stupid. She's wised up I can actually have a conversation with her. She's remarried to a decent guy with kids and she has a BM from hell so she's really mellowed out.
Fruit, of course it is. How
Fruit, of course it is. How else does Jabba afford her smokes and wine? Or her husbands birthday and Christmas presents?
heh heh! In my case it's the
heh heh! In my case it's the Girhippo's Outer Banks vaca home. Which only one of the skids visits now.
In our case it's obsessive
In our case it's obsessive shopping on QVC. SD even told us it's BM's favorite channel to watch on tv! And she buys really dumb crap, for herself! She wouldn't be able to do this without the CS.
FDH worked really hard to better himself. BM did not, but reaps some of the reward...not SD. SD reaps the reward when she's with us.
The problem with this line of
The problem with this line of thinking is that there IS a formula in place and all the wishing and hoping and bitching about how there shouldn't be a formula in place is really tilting at windmills...
In most states, the point of CS is to equalize the child's standard of living in each household. It's far from a perfect system, but it's the one we have.
It becomes a problem when one parent doesn't work or works very little in order to maximize the other parent's obligation. That's really a reflection on the "lazy" parent more than it is a condemnation of the system, isn't it?
I agree and I feel like in A
I agree and I feel like in A LOT of cases, it sets the tone early on for one parent to be a lazy slug...why get a job or get a better job when CS is a guarantee? So one parent (slug) sits home and just collects her CS and the other parent works their ass off to support two households. This is the part that irks me.
Back in the good ol' days,
Back in the good ol' days, the children would go to whomever was the highest earner as they would be best in a position to financially support said children. Great incentive to get off your duff and make something of yourself. None of today's wealth redistribution schemes.
In my case I would have gotten custody anyway simply because WORK was anathema to my ex-husbands.
In the good old days women
In the good old days women were vilified for being divorced and having given up many years to raise children and not work outside of the home (because that was unacceptable), they were shoved out whithout children or a career and made to get on with it all whilst being judged and shunned for having been divorced. Not saying that today's system is any better but let's not clamor to go back to the 'good ole days'. At least in theory these days it should be more fair and child rearing up until the point of divorce is accounted for. The reason today's courts are biased against men somewhat is because they used to swing a whole lot further the other way and be hugely biased against women. Some how the courts need to get back further towards the middle ground.
I would gladly give up my
I would gladly give up my career to be a Martha Stewart!
Yup - but the good news is
Yup - but the good news is that the lazy slug eventually comes off the other parent's payroll. The CS train eventually leaves the station
I completely disagree with
I completely disagree with you. It is not a blanket scenario. You can't just say if you have 50/50 custody that the other person doesn't get CS. That would just make more people fight for custody. It should be on a case by case basis. Let me tell you what I mean:
In my situation, I DO get CS and I have 50/50 custody. My ex makes about 5 times as much as I do. Is it because I refused to make something of myself? No, it's because I had a much later start in my career because of our kids. My ex was hired by the Department of Defense in our second year of marriage. I was in college full-time when it happened. He was offered a good salary, but we had to move. So I dropped out of college and followed him. I took care of both of our kids and stayed at home so that we would have the option of moving, any time that his job needed us too. We moved about every year. I did finish school online. However, I was never able to get into a long term position because we were always uprooted. That is just the manner of his work. You move when you are told.
He is making over 6 figures and I had to start at the bottom of my field when we separated. I did it and have been working up since then. I make an okay salary but am far below him. However, we have a review every 3 years and he gets a reduction as my pay goes up. Our system in Florida gives him a big break for having 50/50 custody. He makes over $100,000 a year and pays under $600 a month in child support for two kids. In fact, he pays less than 10% of his pay for child support. I have never argued during a modification. Now that I am married to DH, the money is used if the kids need something (such as my son needs braces). The rest goes into an account. But when we separated, I needed that money desperately, because I was only making $10 an hour. My kids were in a school in my ex's neighborhood and this area is pricey. Even with the help, I could only afford a small apartment. I don't think there is anything wrong with expecting the other parent to help until the lower earning partner gets on his/her feet. On the flip side, I don't think it should go on forever while the other person just sits around doing nothing.
I agree that it should be on
I agree that it should be on a case by case basis, especially for people who are in situations like what yours was.
In my FDH's case, BM had just as much opportunity to better herself as he did, she just chose not to.
I'm in Florida and have 50/50
I'm in Florida and have 50/50 custody and we don't do child support. I would have had to pay my ex husband child support but I cover their health insurance which is expensive. We don't argue or fight at all and happily share the kiddos.
Now DD2's dad pays BM over $1000 a month for two kids and she won't let him half 50/50 because it'll cut her money down. She actually has her own business but it's a hair salon so she hides her true income.
But I will be getting a very significant raise in income over the next two and a half years. I'll probably have to pay child support. But I'd rather not do it through the courts. But I have worked my butt off these 7 years since our divorce. He's doing the same as he always has. Lives off of a woman.
That's exactly right. I think
That's exactly right. I think the main frustration is that they were dead broke for years so that he could put himself through school, she was the one scrimping and saving and driving an old beater to support the college situation and now that he's graduated they are having to ship the money off.
I would not mind. Just like
I would not mind. Just like I didn't mind when DH was paying CS to Medusa to "elevate" her shithole, I mean household.
I have no problem with the income sharing model.
Because in the US, the feds
Because in the US, the feds give "incentives" to the localities that collect the most amount of CS $$$. There is no incentive for the gov't/court/family court grist mill to grant a downward mod even if it is completely justified.
exactly - the court cannot
exactly - the court cannot force the CP to behave a certain way.
Like I said, I feel that the majority of CS-receiving CPs spend the money appropriately.
I also know, having been a CS-receiving CP who spent my CS in an appropriate manner, that NCPs still bitch about having to pay it - LOL!!
He is a CP... he has 50:50.
He is a CP... he has 50:50. Any monies given to someone who is able bodied and has potential is a misuse.
wouldn't the kid be a legal
wouldn't the kid be a legal tie??? :? :?
Rover? Lol. No it doesn't
Rover? Lol. No it doesn't seem fair. She was in college too going to trade school and dropped out. They both had the same opportunity.
That's so frustrating. At the
That's so frustrating. At the end you start thinking why did I bust my ass so badly?
Annnnnnd this is why
Annnnnnd this is why socialism doesn't work. Human nature dictates that there will always be the crowd that jumps in the cart; then the people who are pulling the cart decide to up and quit and go Galt.
Same with BM... The harder DH
Same with BM... The harder DH works and the more money he makes, the more she gets and yet she stays the same....
DH has went to college and improved himself greatly since divorcing BM and she benefited from it.
Thank God it's almost over.
I think this is when Karma
I think this is when Karma kicks in.
The BM has lived for years off CS, gotten raises along the way because exDH has improved himself and his earning potential, but it ends. BM has a life style she can't continue once her income, the CS, ends. Then she's growing old and has no money.
My exH was the biggest ASS and refused to pay me any CS for the first 3 years.
I was angry but mostly terrified at how I would take care of myself and my kids. After 10 years as a SAHM I was in a bad place.
He thought I'd crumble and the kids would live with him. He never saw it as money for the kids, he always saw it as money for me.
Turns out it was the BEST thing he could have done for me. I discovered that I am capable and strong and able to take care of myself and my kids.
Then years later, when I didn't need the money, he had to pay me the back CS. Suddenly I had money to invest and to take the kids on trips.
Karma!
50/50 split custody should
50/50 split custody should NEVER have one parent paying the other parent CS. NEVER. I don't care if one makes minimum wage and one make 1 million a year.
I just don't understand why people have kids in states like this. The person who wants to better themselves really gets screwed. Usually a man.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Hindsight is always 20/20. One doesn't think when procreating that it will be the biggest F*** up of your life.
What happens to 50/50 when the parents split when kids are older teenagers and refuse to do the 50/50...preferring the "higher" living home vs the middle class home?
It is not right if one parent
It is not right if one parent lives in a great house with a pool and the other lives in a small apartment.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why? Why is it not right? If the one in the small apartment wants to live in a great house, then they should.
Most people think that a man needs to step up and get two jobs to make his support payments. What about the woman step up and make sure she is not left in the position of no job and no income and no schooling when she gets a divorce.
I guarantee if you made a law that all custody was 50/50 and no CS passes hands, you would have a MANY more women in the job force able to support themselves AND THEIR KIDS because they know there will be NO gravy train for them in CS.
you know how much I hate
you know how much I hate agreeing with you, but you are absolutely right. CS does take away the economic influence, and it meant to not penalize a child, BUT the ways in which people abuse and work the system are just infuriating at times...
Maybe so... definitely NOT in
Maybe so... definitely NOT in our case. BM2 lives in a teeny tiny apartment.. has never lived anywhere but an apartment. According to her she never has any money blah blah.. same old song and dance. DH and I live in an almost 3000 Sq ft home, on 22 acres, we live decently (money in savings, no super tight budget etc) yet SS chooses to live with BM. DH has offered many times in the past 5 years for SS to come and live with us and nope.
And I look at it as this... if one parent CHOOSES to not have a job or have a crappy part time job and live in a teeny apartment, then why is it the other parent's responsibility to make that person's life "better"?? to me that is entitlement at it's finest.
Exactly! Bm had every
Exactly! Bm had every opportunity to finish school and better herself, hell she had a better chance because she was living at home.
Amen! And what about the "no
Amen! And what about the "no rules" factor? I find that kids will naturally gravitate toward a shanty when there are no rules and a BFFing BM than a nice house, yard, etc. when there are rules. Human nature.
Hell if the BM is raking in the CS dough, has a silk pillow job and remarries to a well-heeled guy, (i.e. Girhippo) that's just icing on the PAS cake!
There's absolutely nothing to mitigate the "no rules" factor. But there is stuff that supposedly mitigates the "equal economic outcome" factor.
So if you go to school and bust your hump, make fantastic grades, you're supposed to lend a few grade points to the druggie who partied all the way through school to bring said partier up to "equal economic outcome?" I think not.
YES! This is why SS stays
YES! This is why SS stays with BM... because he does as he pleases. He roams the streets, pretty sure he smokes dope in her home and she is well aware of it( they do after all, have a cat with some dope name), he doesn't go to school, she started giving him condoms at age 11 and on and on and on. Of COURSE he wants to live with her... what teenager wouldn't? He'd gladly live in a tiny 2 bedroom, rather than live in our 5 bedroom with RULES and CONSEQUENCES.
I should have added, they
I should have added, they still live in the same modest 1950's 3bedroom house that she bought and fixed up with her parents. There is no grand swimming pool and pony stables. So yeah, if they were able to afford a mansion and light money on fire I would feel differently. But that's just not the case.
So yeah, if they were able to
So yeah, if they were able to afford a mansion and light money on fire I would feel differently.
I still wouldn't feel differently... again.. BM's choice to not further her education, not have decent paying job etc. DH is better off because of HIS choices and also because of MINE. I would flip my shit if money was flying out of my windows and into BM's because BM/skids are entitled to "live like we do"
hmmm.... punish the kid
hmmm....
punish the kid because of BM's choices. I don't think that is the point of child support.
Yes, it sucks when BMs sit on their asses thinking child support is for them, but, despite the majority of the BMs we bitch about, I think most BMs use it for the right purpose.
BMs who choose not to further their education will pay the literal price when their super speshul snowflakes age out.
It doesn't matter whether I
It doesn't matter whether I live Ina shit hole or their father lives in a mansion, our children love us regardless and want to spend time with us because of the relationship I've built with them. Your argument is a cop out for poor parenting. I believe in 50/50 and I believe that each adult is responsible to blaze their own trail. Another adult is not responsible for your lifestyle.
So what about military
So what about military spouses who give up their careers to follow their spouse around? Would it be better if the mom and kids stay in one place while dad moves around so she can move up the ladder? I guess it would be better for all if the dad never sees his kids. Or maybe you think military families shouldn't have kids? You make a blanket statement and it shows a real lack of insight. You have no idea what the circumstances are in any individual situation.
What happens to 50/50 when
What happens to 50/50 when the parents split when kids are older teenagers and refuse to do the 50/50...preferring the "higher" living home vs the middle class home?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I know that visitation is not tied to support but I think it should be. If a parent alienates a kid to not see the other parent then the other parent should not have to pay support.
Same with this. If a teenager refused to live 50 percent with the lower wage earner, then that parent should not have to pay support.
I guarantee that if you tied CS to visitation, over 90 to 95 percent of the PAS would stop asap.
My Ex doesn't pay his court
My Ex doesn't pay his court ordered CS (He's behind $18,000) and I know for a fact if I withheld visitation of BS he would step up and make more of an effort. But I could never do that to BS.
because you love your son
because you love your son more than you hate your ex or want his money :-0
You're a good mom
Thanks! I appreciate that
Thanks! I appreciate that
Wish the Girhippo 'n' Clan
Wish the Girhippo 'n' Clan would move to your state!
I find that hard to believe.
I find that hard to believe. It's well established that access and support are two unrelated things.
PM the state in which you live - I would LOVE to see this in the statutes.
So, as you are aware, a
So, as you are aware, a non-paying CP obligor legally can get free access to visitation
Conversely, paying CS does not guarantee that the CP will facilitate visitation
The latter is much more common than the former--with one caveat--when referring to NCP bioDADs
NCP BioMOMS seem to slip this hook.
Constructive Emancipation by
Constructive Emancipation by Conduct is more rare than a rose blooming in -15 degree F weather.
Not sure when it comes to NCP bioMOMS; I'm sure much more leeway is given there. And most CP bioDADS are "too proud" to accept CS from a NCP BM :sick:
I didn't think it said
I didn't think it said termination. I will be curious to see the statute.
Don't worry about that. They
Don't worry about that. They remain separate. If visitation is terminated unlawfully by the (usually) CP BM, the NCP bioDAD will still be obligated to pay. Very few exception. Constructive Emancipation by Conduct almost NEVER happens.
they still will owe CS
they still will owe CS providing there is a CO. Anyways that's the way it is now (since the 90's) I was in the situation like ZeroDrama, I facilitated visitation even though I received no CS.
Yep and in NYS, the 2nd job
Yep and in NYS, the 2nd job is considered a source of income for additional CS!!
No wonder so many men work UTT
If anyone has to get a second
If anyone has to get a second job -or earn more money - and you want to actually see that money, the only way to do that is for you to be the one to make the extra income
So really, in essence SHE is
So really, in essence SHE is working a second job to support skids, because second job wouldn't be needed if $500/month wasn't going to support BM household.... no matter how you look at it, it sucks monkey nuts. I mean it really does.
agreed
agreed
Yep. Queue the "you knew
Yep. Queue the "you knew what you were getting into when you married/had a relationship with a man that has children"
No matter how you slice it, NCP SM will end up financially supporting the skids (and, let's be honest here, BM) indirectly if not directly.
As well as the CP SM, but they usually get to see more results as they have a direct influence on skids.
"Having CS doesn't take away
"Having CS doesn't take away incentive. There was never incentive in the first place."
That is very, very true. I like that.
All I can say is that I am so
All I can say is that I am so glad CS is over.
Lucky you! Dominatrix (SD)
Lucky you! Dominatrix (SD) will be 18 this month but we live in a 21 yr old state. Prince Hygiene (YSS) will be 14 in 2 months so that's another 7 years. :sick:
Thank the lord that I found out Pumpkinhead OSS, 20, emancipated himself by moving out. Otherwise the Girhippo would have said nothing so that we would have continued to pay CS for him.
BM has no desire to better
BM has no desire to better herself but reaps the benefits of her ex making something of himself, all because she spread her legs. I am sorry but that is how I see it. Awful.
but it ends at some point.
but it ends at some point. Once the kid ages out, the gravy train is done.
It's the one thing you can cling to
C/S is supposed to "equalize"
C/S is supposed to "equalize" households. But in a lot of cases what it does is help keep the CP off government assistance.
And gov't assistance should
And gov't assistance should only be TEMPORARY, not a lifetime career. So either way, the "equalization" should only be temporary.
Meh, this same old debate
Meh, this same old debate plays over and over here on ST.
What's the kid now? About 11-12? OP came along when kid six, household poorer than poor for five years then while Dad goes to school. So, yeah, about 11-12yrs old now. Five years of eating P&J sandwiches night after night for two weeks a month. I'd say that kid did some sacrificing himself for Daddy to earn that new paycheck. I doubt kid is now finally living high on his $600 a month CS.
I doubt even more that the CS modification means " Are you just SOL if you want to be a productive member of society?" If $600 a month to a child makes or breaks a parent as a "productive member of society" ..... ah, well, I hope the kid at least gets a burger or a piece of chicken while he's being resented and deemed undeserving . *SMH*
The 50/50 thing is so
The 50/50 thing is so interesting, there's so many variables a lot of those depend on what state you are in.
DH has always had 50/50. When the final CS was ordered he had NO job and the prior job he made LESS than BM (BM has a good job with lots of flexible time off and bonuses and don't get me started on the income she gets from her rental apartment). He was still ordered to pay BM CS. The minimal amount, but still - the "equalization" didn't work.
BM now thinks that DH makes more than her, or has access to more funds (ha! - she's thinking of counting my income in that) so she's said he needs to cover MORE incidentals. Like he doesn't already to keep her at bay. I suspect that BM is going to start asking for more and more from DH in the upcoming years. DH has been pushing back a bit because he does pay for so much already and it's resulting in an issue that he has no savings and has not been able to put any money away for retirement (she took pretty much all of it in the divorce) or the girls college. It's sad.
The problem I see about
The problem I see about equalization is that not all high earners choose to live at their earning potential. I went to an MBA program that is very highly rated - many of my classmates make TONS of money - like millions.
Many are just normal people who do not choose to live like billionaires even if they could. With no divorce it's not an issue. But with divorce some are forced to provide CS at astronomical levels - even if that's not how they want their children to be raised.
I also know some very very
I also know some very very rich people. They do live in nice houses and drive nice cars, but they do not flaunt their wealth with expensive brand name clothes and accessories. They are down to earth, easy to talk to and not at all snobbish.
We live well below our means, we spend our money on vacations and experiences, not flashy things to impress people we don't care about. We have a healthy bank account and money invested for retirement.
BM is the opposite. She has the newest leased vehicle, a brand new $70K 5th wheel, the expensive brand name bags and shoes. She's building a house on a lake. And she is deep deep deep in debt. She can't finish her expensive house, owes 100's of thousands in loans but still gets her hair and nails done.
To her it's about how her life looks to the outside world, when things are good she's all over FB, when things aren't great, nada.
And DH left with nothing, but his truck, his TV, one livingroom set. She kept the house, her new Jeep, all the furnishings from a 2500 sq foot house, plus $5K to $8K a month in CS!