The way I understand support, it's based on your DH's income & BM's income. If his income hasn't decreased, it's not likely his support obligation will either.
Him choosing to have another baby doesn't mean his first child/ren will require any less.
Per the statute the only consideration given to successive children is IF the parent obtains a second job to support the successive children, the income from the second job will not be calculated into the cs calculations for existing children.
However!!!! I do have a friend who had one child with a crazy BM. Years later got married, had twins, and applied for a CS modification. A really nice judge gave him a whopping 15% discount off the amt of cs for the 1st child since he had two more.
Not guaranteed unless it's in the law. For example--NY and IL takes into account CS of other children. It seems to work in the dad's favor more if the mom is the one going after him, and if it's through the CS office, since if he's just a full time regular employee with no other sources of income, they just use a formula. Therefore if you want it lowered legitimately, then get CS for the new kid. DH and I are filing CS for the one in my tummy right now, so if BM tries to take him for an increase in CS, it'll actually get lowered. I think (don't quote me on this but it gives you a leg up for it to look more legitimate) you have to prove you live at separate residences and he doesn't contribute already to your living expenses. Thankfully we got that covered since all of our finances are separate and each have our own residence obligation.
For us, it looks a lot like taxes.
Gross income.... xxx
- Taxes.... xxx
- Health Insurance... xxx
- Other Child Support Obligations.... xxx
= xxx multiplied by Child Support percentage as dictated by law/Months in a year = CS per month
Moral of the story--if you're gonna have kids and don't want them to be screwed in terms of how much dad brings home, file for CS. Yes, you can do it while you're married.
Er. First, we have separate residences that we live in each place half of the time. I pay all property taxes there and utilities and maintenance for mine, he pays it for his. I pay for the food for both as between the two of us, since I bring home more bacon.
How do we figure out how much we each contribute to the ours child, then? Tell me, should I not have DH contribute just because we're married, so I take on all the burden by myself? Please, as you so enjoy reminding others, divorce does not absolve a person from the responsibility of paying for a child, likewise, neither does marriage.
Since wer'e both self sufficient with separate bills to pay (I pay nothing of his except groceries, he pays nothing of mine at all), then how do you propose we decide how much to put away for our kid? Likewise, what happens when the courts look at what he's trying to save for our child in his checking account and uses it as leftover income so BM can take it for extracurriculars? How, pray tell, does the courts protect us from that?
News flash, it fucking doesn't until the ours child is legally recognized as a responsibility in the eyes of the court, so we're doing it ourselves.
It's not like he's contributing to my household and then adding even more, we're just using the state ordered CS for what is otherwise, financially, a nonmarried couple. Nonmarried Bm gets CS because she's financially separate from DH, so why shouldn't I?
Oh, what's that? You want me to figure out how much I'd spend on my child and then use the lower figure from that to budget from the leftovers of how much he can contribute, (let's forget a moment about the extracurricular issues)? Well, when the courts start requiring BM's to show how much they actually spend on the kid (and that they're contributing half to everything), and use that as the basis for CS, then we can start talking.
This is not lying. Lying would be if he paid for everything of ours already and I'm still taking him for CS despite being under the umbrella of him paying all the bills. This is him contributing an equal amount as mandated by the state. I'm even doing this one better because it's going into an account that I will also be matching his CS. Geez, just because we're married doesn't mean our kid gets the short end of the stick, or whatever leftovers the courts happen to throw us. And it's not like we're doing it because we're asking for a modification--if BM wants to ask for one, it's at her own risk--we're doing it because we genuinely want the baby and we also want it's future to be protected. That's where all its food, clothing, toys, education/college saving will come out of.
By the way, did you know for us to do the state mandated CS, we must factor in his pre-existing order? Which means since it's a percentage of his net income less existing orders, the CS he'd be contributing to our kid is less than what BM is getting to begin with. And I'm not asking for a damn dime more.
I'd suggest next time you actually read the situation before you go off on accusing people.
I could SO easily screw the shit out of BM if I wanted to. Since I own both buildings (actually the one that DH is responsible for is his "dream house" that he has a mortgage with me--he's buying it from me since I had only put down the money for it as a favor to him) I could, theoretically, be upping ALL of DH's expenses if I decided to do joint with him. 100k left in mortgages, 20k in property taxes, utilities for both, I currently work on commission and am otherwise a SAHM and am going to school. If I wanted to fuck with BM with a modification, it would be disgustingly easy if I "shared" all my expenses with DH as well, and on top of that got CS from him (which is still possible, albeit might be less than the state ordered amount since then we're living together.) Doing the calculations, her CS would have gotten cut from $600 a month to nearly $200 a month.
But I don't. Even though a lot of Bm's have no compunction about hurting the second family to ensure their status quo. I don't because at least I have some honor. I won't hurt you, but I will do everything by the books and if you try to screw me, I will ensure that the one who is screwed is you.
I don't feel the need or the desire to. I, as a mother-to-be, am simply ensuring my offspring's wellbeing. Protecting my child is first and foremost--BM doesn't give a damn about my kid, and does everything to "protect her child" even if it's illegal or morally abborrhant--and everyone wants to commend her for just doing what she thinks is best. And here I am, doing what I think is best, in a truthful manner. It drives me crazy when people think it is out of having no other choice, when I am doing the separation between our finances, and the CS thing, out of pity and equality.
*rolls eyes* Yes I am sure Child Support is used for the children in most cases, and not because people are trying to screw the system.
And we're not asking for a modification--what part of that don't you get? We simply want to ensure there is a portion of his income made untouchable by the court system so that he can properly support our kid--since hey, CS doesn't cover extracurriculars or daycare, which is taken out of leftover household income which is left unprotected. If he only had $300 left after all of his expenses (which I don't share since I have mine, which are quite a bit more than his), they could take all $300 if they deemed it to be, even though that would mean he can't pay a single dime to our child.
With our child recognized by the courts, at the very least a portion is set aside. He doesn't give me any more than that since we have too much separate responsibilities.
If BM wanted to ask for an upwards modification, by all means she can. If the courts say she can get more, then we follow the law. If they say she'll get less due to the fact that he has another CS order, then too freaking bad. We didn't hold a gun to her head and say "Go to court and modify."
I'm sure you only read what you want to read, so this is lost on you. We are, financially, completely separated--so how do you expect him to contribute to an ours child when all of his income, including after CS is taken out, is at risk to be taken by BM? Please answer that.
Seriously, what snowflake did you fall off of? Some states do take into account children from subsequent marriages and they make some calculations based on it so that the DH cannot have a portion of his income taken into account for the support of the second child--they're just not being proactive in the way that we are that we want to make it clear what he contributes to our kid so we don't have to go through the legal hooblah of calculating and spending yet more money on lawyers and time. Nope, since the state he's under the jurisdiction of takes into account subsequent children, then if the time comes, he'll report that he has subsequent children. We simply filed CS as a way to show how much he is contributing.
He doesn't contribute to my mortgages, my food, my utilities, and I don't contribute to his (except for food since I grocery shop for the both of us). Please, please, dear god, tell me how he would be able to give me money for our child without it being up for grabs for BM?
Pfft sure, I'll divorce him then. Then take him for alimony too since I'm a SAHM. We've talked about that as a possibility as well. Then what?
In case you didn't know, being married does not absolve him of his responsibility, nor mine, to support our child.
Lol or we'll pool our expenses and cut it in half so we commingle. Hey, he has no mortgage, but if he does commingle with me, he'll effectively have to pay for half of two, half of property insurance for both, along with half of two property taxes (which is, in NY at least, for both is close to 18k) along with me sharing some of his small and only expenses, like cell phone bill and car insurance and his utilities (but maybe not, since I have my own car insurance as well so adding them together and cutting them in half is like not putting them together at all). Whoopee, I just saved so much money so that the $500 he would have given me just for CS and nothing else is peanuts compared with how much I don't have to pay--which is like him paying CS anyway, except maybe double or triple it--and it will still be counted since they take into account all his expenses except food in that jurisdiction. And once this kid is born, we'll have him contribute half as to its expenses anyway, which will still be counted in. It's just more annoying that we have to keep receipts.
Hmm, If I placed a rough estimate on how much I'd save and how much his expenses would go up if we commingled equally, then it would be up $1900 a month--which is what I'd save. And like I said, his jurisdiction takes his expenses into account,
Hey we're married right? So maybe it's time we acted like it and he can share my burdens. Just like married couples do even though I came into this marriage with way more assets, but way more responsibilities too.
If we do it this way, I don't even need CS. LMFAO I'm going to bring this up to him today. Thanks! And in this way, we're not committing any fraud like you said. We're /married/. Oh gawd, this is hilarious. I would love to see what the aftermath of a modification with that would be.
Being the nice one sure doesn't pay in this day and age anymore, so I'll stop being nice since I have your blessing.
Never hurts to try. I know in Oregon, child support to the ex wife is non negotiable. If a man chooses to have a second family after his divorce, it is up to him to figure out how he will support everyone.
In an intact family, mom & dad are working together to support their children. When divorce happens, mom's household & finances shouldn't have to be altered to accomodate dad having a baby with someone else.
Dad does have a right to move on & have another child. But it's on him to figure out how to make the money work on his. His decision to have more babies shouldn't be touching mom's house.
How well do you imagine it would go over if the roles were reversed...if BM was the one paying support to the home of SM & DH & BM took your DH to court to have her support reduced because she wanted to spit out more babies? Should DH's & SM's finances have to suffer to accomodate BM's reproductive choices?
If it's the law, then by all means she is allowed to do as she pleases. If you choose to reproduce with someone and not stay with them, you have to be prepared for the consequences that they may move on and either not support, or have changes in their level of support. They may move, get a new lower paying job or get fired, in net income states changes in insurance, taxes, or have a new child.
Do you feel like it's fair? Probably not. Chances are you probably wouldn't feel it's fair even if it was due to unemployment and getting a lower paying job--would you require the parent who is paying CS would have to get another job to make up for the difference?
Yes, it is about mom's finances as well. When parents live together, they support the child equally.
Let;'s say that the child'expenses mount up to $600 per month in a household with two parents who live together. They pay from their shred account. If not...one pays half, and the other half. When the parents share custody, why the NCP should pay the CP the all the expenses a child would have in that month? Should it be 50/50?
Mom's income shouldn't have to suffer because dad wants to make another mouth to feed somewhere else. CS programs are screwed up anyway. There are a lot of parents paying outrageous amounts.
I've never complained about my DH's support. His isn't crazy high.
I guess I take issue with this because if it were the other way around...if it was a SM posting about hers & her DH's household income being altered by BM CS being decreased because BM kept having more babies, the comments & replies would be very different. How many SM's would be understanding about having to cut back on expenses because BM's support payments were being cut so that she could make more babies?
Seems a lot of SM's justify things for their favor that they would fight tooth & nail if the tables were turned.
Very true!
But the society discriminates against fathers. It is accepted that a father should end his life when he gets divorced and the ex-wife and kids should take everything he has. Wrong!
Mothers are responsible for raising the kids also. And if they don't make as much money to pay for their life style and the children's, they should adapt.
Like I said previously, dad should not pay an arm and a leg just because they have kids.
There are situations in which dads pay a lot of money to support their kids and the kids are dirty, their clothes are raggedy,they look like they have not had a decent meal in days etc. Where does the CS go to? So mommy can have manicures and pedicures????
My opinion is that child support should be given based on the basic expenses that a parent would encounter for the child. If they want extra curricular activities for that particular child, they should pay for them. Why would a 4-5 year old child need $600 per month? Mother should contribute to raising that child as well. When she buys food for the household, why should she buy separate food for the child?
This whole child support issue is overrated and when the father pays money for the child, the mother benefits as well. Or some mothers don't use that money on the kid.
If I was a judge, I would make this mother accountable for every penny they spend on the child from the child support.
I wish NCPs could be held accountable for the time spent with their kids. Pushing your kid off on a stepparents should not count as visitation with mom or dad.
On the flip side, where a single child, or two children, are receiving huge amounts - beyond basics for living and erring on the side of "keeping a lifestyle intact" the dad or mom paying is definitely entitled to a reduction when a new child is born. This is simple math. Two babies cost x. Three cost y. Dad has to suport all the babies he puts into various containers (sorry for the crudeness). All those babies are innocent parties and should have basic support.
I am a big proponent of divide the resources among the children, not just the first borns, but ALL the children, because the children are innocent of the foolishness, and I have seen so many first or second moms then attack dad's income from second job, bonuses, tax refunds, and the like, to get MORE for their little chickadees - when those first or second born kids were already easily being provided the basics for and mom was sitting at home with a new hubby paying the rest of the bills.
I say this as an attorney for kids (all kids, not just the first borns), as a birth mom receiving child support, and as a stepmom paying 1000 for one teen - and I pay the support, hubby doesn't, due to spousal maintenance and his first mortgage (house ordered sold two years ago, and so far ex refuses to do so....2500 a month down the drain in addition to 1000 spousal support and legal fees).
I understand both major sides of the issue. As far as having another child to lower child support, sometimes that doesn't work for some people! LOL I remember watching the HLN about one man in his twenties who was paying child support for over 30 CHILDREN!!! So how come our government cannot offer a men's health program like the women's health program? After so many children that they father (I think its after 3 for women), a state paid vasectomy is offered? Like they offer getting a woman's tube's tied? I am sure that there would be a lot of men lining up for that procedure, LOL!
BTW, that man with 30+ kids pays half his paycheck to child support, but he makes minimum wage. It only amounts to about $1 something per child, per month! So yes, there is a HUGE issue here.
The way I understand support,
The way I understand support, it's based on your DH's income & BM's income. If his income hasn't decreased, it's not likely his support obligation will either.
Him choosing to have another baby doesn't mean his first child/ren will require any less.
No. Not guaranteed. Per the
No. Not guaranteed.
Per the statute the only consideration given to successive children is IF the parent obtains a second job to support the successive children, the income from the second job will not be calculated into the cs calculations for existing children.
However!!!! I do have a friend who had one child with a crazy BM. Years later got married, had twins, and applied for a CS modification. A really nice judge gave him a whopping 15% discount off the amt of cs for the 1st child since he had two more.
Not guaranteed unless it's in
Not guaranteed unless it's in the law. For example--NY and IL takes into account CS of other children. It seems to work in the dad's favor more if the mom is the one going after him, and if it's through the CS office, since if he's just a full time regular employee with no other sources of income, they just use a formula. Therefore if you want it lowered legitimately, then get CS for the new kid. DH and I are filing CS for the one in my tummy right now, so if BM tries to take him for an increase in CS, it'll actually get lowered. I think (don't quote me on this but it gives you a leg up for it to look more legitimate) you have to prove you live at separate residences and he doesn't contribute already to your living expenses. Thankfully we got that covered since all of our finances are separate and each have our own residence obligation.
For us, it looks a lot like taxes.
Gross income.... xxx
- Taxes.... xxx
- Health Insurance... xxx
- Other Child Support Obligations.... xxx
= xxx multiplied by Child Support percentage as dictated by law/Months in a year = CS per month
Moral of the story--if you're gonna have kids and don't want them to be screwed in terms of how much dad brings home, file for CS. Yes, you can do it while you're married.
Er. First, we have separate
Er. First, we have separate residences that we live in each place half of the time. I pay all property taxes there and utilities and maintenance for mine, he pays it for his. I pay for the food for both as between the two of us, since I bring home more bacon.
How do we figure out how much we each contribute to the ours child, then? Tell me, should I not have DH contribute just because we're married, so I take on all the burden by myself? Please, as you so enjoy reminding others, divorce does not absolve a person from the responsibility of paying for a child, likewise, neither does marriage.
Since wer'e both self sufficient with separate bills to pay (I pay nothing of his except groceries, he pays nothing of mine at all), then how do you propose we decide how much to put away for our kid? Likewise, what happens when the courts look at what he's trying to save for our child in his checking account and uses it as leftover income so BM can take it for extracurriculars? How, pray tell, does the courts protect us from that?
News flash, it fucking doesn't until the ours child is legally recognized as a responsibility in the eyes of the court, so we're doing it ourselves.
It's not like he's contributing to my household and then adding even more, we're just using the state ordered CS for what is otherwise, financially, a nonmarried couple. Nonmarried Bm gets CS because she's financially separate from DH, so why shouldn't I?
Oh, what's that? You want me to figure out how much I'd spend on my child and then use the lower figure from that to budget from the leftovers of how much he can contribute, (let's forget a moment about the extracurricular issues)? Well, when the courts start requiring BM's to show how much they actually spend on the kid (and that they're contributing half to everything), and use that as the basis for CS, then we can start talking.
This is not lying. Lying would be if he paid for everything of ours already and I'm still taking him for CS despite being under the umbrella of him paying all the bills. This is him contributing an equal amount as mandated by the state. I'm even doing this one better because it's going into an account that I will also be matching his CS. Geez, just because we're married doesn't mean our kid gets the short end of the stick, or whatever leftovers the courts happen to throw us. And it's not like we're doing it because we're asking for a modification--if BM wants to ask for one, it's at her own risk--we're doing it because we genuinely want the baby and we also want it's future to be protected. That's where all its food, clothing, toys, education/college saving will come out of.
By the way, did you know for us to do the state mandated CS, we must factor in his pre-existing order? Which means since it's a percentage of his net income less existing orders, the CS he'd be contributing to our kid is less than what BM is getting to begin with. And I'm not asking for a damn dime more.
I'd suggest next time you actually read the situation before you go off on accusing people.
I could SO easily screw the
I could SO easily screw the shit out of BM if I wanted to. Since I own both buildings (actually the one that DH is responsible for is his "dream house" that he has a mortgage with me--he's buying it from me since I had only put down the money for it as a favor to him) I could, theoretically, be upping ALL of DH's expenses if I decided to do joint with him. 100k left in mortgages, 20k in property taxes, utilities for both, I currently work on commission and am otherwise a SAHM and am going to school. If I wanted to fuck with BM with a modification, it would be disgustingly easy if I "shared" all my expenses with DH as well, and on top of that got CS from him (which is still possible, albeit might be less than the state ordered amount since then we're living together.) Doing the calculations, her CS would have gotten cut from $600 a month to nearly $200 a month.
But I don't. Even though a lot of Bm's have no compunction about hurting the second family to ensure their status quo. I don't because at least I have some honor. I won't hurt you, but I will do everything by the books and if you try to screw me, I will ensure that the one who is screwed is you.
I don't feel the need or the desire to. I, as a mother-to-be, am simply ensuring my offspring's wellbeing. Protecting my child is first and foremost--BM doesn't give a damn about my kid, and does everything to "protect her child" even if it's illegal or morally abborrhant--and everyone wants to commend her for just doing what she thinks is best. And here I am, doing what I think is best, in a truthful manner. It drives me crazy when people think it is out of having no other choice, when I am doing the separation between our finances, and the CS thing, out of pity and equality.
*rolls eyes* Yes I am sure
*rolls eyes* Yes I am sure Child Support is used for the children in most cases, and not because people are trying to screw the system.
And we're not asking for a modification--what part of that don't you get? We simply want to ensure there is a portion of his income made untouchable by the court system so that he can properly support our kid--since hey, CS doesn't cover extracurriculars or daycare, which is taken out of leftover household income which is left unprotected. If he only had $300 left after all of his expenses (which I don't share since I have mine, which are quite a bit more than his), they could take all $300 if they deemed it to be, even though that would mean he can't pay a single dime to our child.
With our child recognized by the courts, at the very least a portion is set aside. He doesn't give me any more than that since we have too much separate responsibilities.
If BM wanted to ask for an upwards modification, by all means she can. If the courts say she can get more, then we follow the law. If they say she'll get less due to the fact that he has another CS order, then too freaking bad. We didn't hold a gun to her head and say "Go to court and modify."
I'm sure you only read what you want to read, so this is lost on you. We are, financially, completely separated--so how do you expect him to contribute to an ours child when all of his income, including after CS is taken out, is at risk to be taken by BM? Please answer that.
Seriously, what snowflake did you fall off of? Some states do take into account children from subsequent marriages and they make some calculations based on it so that the DH cannot have a portion of his income taken into account for the support of the second child--they're just not being proactive in the way that we are that we want to make it clear what he contributes to our kid so we don't have to go through the legal hooblah of calculating and spending yet more money on lawyers and time. Nope, since the state he's under the jurisdiction of takes into account subsequent children, then if the time comes, he'll report that he has subsequent children. We simply filed CS as a way to show how much he is contributing.
He doesn't contribute to my mortgages, my food, my utilities, and I don't contribute to his (except for food since I grocery shop for the both of us). Please, please, dear god, tell me how he would be able to give me money for our child without it being up for grabs for BM?
Pfft sure, I'll divorce him then. Then take him for alimony too since I'm a SAHM. We've talked about that as a possibility as well. Then what?
In case you didn't know, being married does not absolve him of his responsibility, nor mine, to support our child.
Lol or we'll pool our expenses and cut it in half so we commingle. Hey, he has no mortgage, but if he does commingle with me, he'll effectively have to pay for half of two, half of property insurance for both, along with half of two property taxes (which is, in NY at least, for both is close to 18k) along with me sharing some of his small and only expenses, like cell phone bill and car insurance and his utilities (but maybe not, since I have my own car insurance as well so adding them together and cutting them in half is like not putting them together at all). Whoopee, I just saved so much money so that the $500 he would have given me just for CS and nothing else is peanuts compared with how much I don't have to pay--which is like him paying CS anyway, except maybe double or triple it--and it will still be counted since they take into account all his expenses except food in that jurisdiction. And once this kid is born, we'll have him contribute half as to its expenses anyway, which will still be counted in. It's just more annoying that we have to keep receipts.
Hmm, If I placed a rough estimate on how much I'd save and how much his expenses would go up if we commingled equally, then it would be up $1900 a month--which is what I'd save. And like I said, his jurisdiction takes his expenses into account,
Hey we're married right? So maybe it's time we acted like it and he can share my burdens. Just like married couples do even though I came into this marriage with way more assets, but way more responsibilities too.
If we do it this way, I don't even need CS. LMFAO I'm going to bring this up to him today. Thanks! And in this way, we're not committing any fraud like you said. We're /married/. Oh gawd, this is hilarious. I would love to see what the aftermath of a modification with that would be.
Being the nice one sure doesn't pay in this day and age anymore, so I'll stop being nice since I have your blessing.
Never hurts to try. I know in
Never hurts to try. I know in Oregon, child support to the ex wife is non negotiable. If a man chooses to have a second family after his divorce, it is up to him to figure out how he will support everyone.
In an intact family, mom &
In an intact family, mom & dad are working together to support their children. When divorce happens, mom's household & finances shouldn't have to be altered to accomodate dad having a baby with someone else.
Dad does have a right to move on & have another child. But it's on him to figure out how to make the money work on his. His decision to have more babies shouldn't be touching mom's house.
How well do you imagine it would go over if the roles were reversed...if BM was the one paying support to the home of SM & DH & BM took your DH to court to have her support reduced because she wanted to spit out more babies? Should DH's & SM's finances have to suffer to accomodate BM's reproductive choices?
If it's the law, then by all
If it's the law, then by all means she is allowed to do as she pleases. If you choose to reproduce with someone and not stay with them, you have to be prepared for the consequences that they may move on and either not support, or have changes in their level of support. They may move, get a new lower paying job or get fired, in net income states changes in insurance, taxes, or have a new child.
Do you feel like it's fair? Probably not. Chances are you probably wouldn't feel it's fair even if it was due to unemployment and getting a lower paying job--would you require the parent who is paying CS would have to get another job to make up for the difference?
Getting laid off isn't
Getting laid off isn't something people can control. Cuts in pay aren't something people can control.
Making more babies when finances are an issue...that's a choice people make all on their own. Apples...oranges.
Yes, it is about mom's
Yes, it is about mom's finances as well. When parents live together, they support the child equally.
Let;'s say that the child'expenses mount up to $600 per month in a household with two parents who live together. They pay from their shred account. If not...one pays half, and the other half. When the parents share custody, why the NCP should pay the CP the all the expenses a child would have in that month? Should it be 50/50?
Mom can live without
Mom can live without manicures and pedicures and kid can stay one week at camp.
Mom's income shouldn't have
Mom's income shouldn't have to suffer because dad wants to make another mouth to feed somewhere else. CS programs are screwed up anyway. There are a lot of parents paying outrageous amounts.
I've never complained about my DH's support. His isn't crazy high.
I guess I take issue with this because if it were the other way around...if it was a SM posting about hers & her DH's household income being altered by BM CS being decreased because BM kept having more babies, the comments & replies would be very different. How many SM's would be understanding about having to cut back on expenses because BM's support payments were being cut so that she could make more babies?
Seems a lot of SM's justify things for their favor that they would fight tooth & nail if the tables were turned.
Yes, but the BMs should pay
Yes, but the BMs should pay their share as well. Dad did not procreate alone.
Very true! But the society
Very true!
But the society discriminates against fathers. It is accepted that a father should end his life when he gets divorced and the ex-wife and kids should take everything he has. Wrong!
Mothers are responsible for raising the kids also. And if they don't make as much money to pay for their life style and the children's, they should adapt.
Like I said previously, dad should not pay an arm and a leg just because they have kids.
There are situations in which dads pay a lot of money to support their kids and the kids are dirty, their clothes are raggedy,they look like they have not had a decent meal in days etc. Where does the CS go to? So mommy can have manicures and pedicures????
My opinion is that child
My opinion is that child support should be given based on the basic expenses that a parent would encounter for the child. If they want extra curricular activities for that particular child, they should pay for them. Why would a 4-5 year old child need $600 per month? Mother should contribute to raising that child as well. When she buys food for the household, why should she buy separate food for the child?
This whole child support issue is overrated and when the father pays money for the child, the mother benefits as well. Or some mothers don't use that money on the kid.
If I was a judge, I would make this mother accountable for every penny they spend on the child from the child support.
I wish NCPs could be held
I wish NCPs could be held accountable for the time spent with their kids. Pushing your kid off on a stepparents should not count as visitation with mom or dad.
That is true, also.
That is true, also.
I'll bet that would affect
I'll bet that would affect the number of babies people make.
Yes! ^^^
Yes! ^^^
On the flip side, where a
On the flip side, where a single child, or two children, are receiving huge amounts - beyond basics for living and erring on the side of "keeping a lifestyle intact" the dad or mom paying is definitely entitled to a reduction when a new child is born. This is simple math. Two babies cost x. Three cost y. Dad has to suport all the babies he puts into various containers (sorry for the crudeness). All those babies are innocent parties and should have basic support.
I am a big proponent of divide the resources among the children, not just the first borns, but ALL the children, because the children are innocent of the foolishness, and I have seen so many first or second moms then attack dad's income from second job, bonuses, tax refunds, and the like, to get MORE for their little chickadees - when those first or second born kids were already easily being provided the basics for and mom was sitting at home with a new hubby paying the rest of the bills.
I say this as an attorney for kids (all kids, not just the first borns), as a birth mom receiving child support, and as a stepmom paying 1000 for one teen - and I pay the support, hubby doesn't, due to spousal maintenance and his first mortgage (house ordered sold two years ago, and so far ex refuses to do so....2500 a month down the drain in addition to 1000 spousal support and legal fees).
I understand both major sides
I understand both major sides of the issue. As far as having another child to lower child support, sometimes that doesn't work for some people! LOL I remember watching the HLN about one man in his twenties who was paying child support for over 30 CHILDREN!!! So how come our government cannot offer a men's health program like the women's health program? After so many children that they father (I think its after 3 for women), a state paid vasectomy is offered? Like they offer getting a woman's tube's tied? I am sure that there would be a lot of men lining up for that procedure, LOL!
BTW, that man with 30+ kids
BTW, that man with 30+ kids pays half his paycheck to child support, but he makes minimum wage. It only amounts to about $1 something per child, per month! So yes, there is a HUGE issue here.