Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Stepmom Central Stepmom Central

Another CS post *UPDATE*

Posted by on Feb. 13, 2014 at 8:47 PM
  • 121 Replies

 Here's a thought I've had once or twice about child support. Why do they ever modify child support? I think the amount of CS should stay the same from the moment it is determined. Why should a CP benefit from the NCP's success? So the NCP works his a$$ off to get a promotion and a raise, just to hand over a large chunk of it to his ex? It doesn't make sense to me (although I'm pretty sure I know what your arguments will be...lol). I get it, I understand the arguments, I just think it's wrong.

Update:

I have no problem with Dh paying child support, if I did, I wouldn't have married him :) I wrote this in hopes of starting a new conversation, and it worked! :)

We actually had the opportunity at one point to lower CS and decided against it. Bm went to work for minimum wage after her deadbeat baby Daddy #2 left her a month before their first child was born. (they are now married...ugh) He left for 6 months and we knew that Bm needed that money to help with her second child. If we went back and got child support lowered, it would just take away from Sd. So Dh continued paying more child support than he technically had to and I started doing all the transportation. (even though our first child had been born just 6 months prior to Bm's new baby.

Those 6 months were actually the best for our situation, everything went to hell in a handbasket when Bm's now husband came back.

by on Feb. 13, 2014 at 8:47 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
pdxmum
by Ruby Member on Feb. 13, 2014 at 8:52 PM
8 moms liked this

So what if the NCP suffers a setback in his/her life and can now only find minimum wage work?  Should the same apply?  Never deviate?

You sound like a wife whose DH pays CS.  And it sounds like you resent it.  

CS is to support the child.  His child.  I would think if a parent finds financial success, he/she would also want to share that success with his/her child.  My guess is you only want him to share that success with your child.

baparrot2
by Platinum Member on Feb. 13, 2014 at 8:54 PM
4 moms liked this

I actually think it should move around. What my toddler needed (daycare days) was huge! But then through elementary and half of junior high it got a little cheaper....no daycare. But then in the high school years, expenses soar at their highest. Like a ridiculous amount of money. Like the cost of living that goes up, so does childcare. What was set when they were young and in diapers is negligible compared to what it is to raise a teen. For instance, did you know that the minute one of your kids turns driving age in your home YOUR insurance rates will spike? Did you know that? Do you think thats fair? Or can you not see tht far into the future just yet?

Bm4sm3
by Member on Feb. 13, 2014 at 8:54 PM
What about if the ncp loses his job due to being laid off or for medical reasons? What if cp who use to be a sahm now is earning a paycheck? What about when expenses change for a child such as daycare or medical? I'm sure if cp lost their job or became unemployed they would ask for a modification. What if ncp changed jobs from a minimum wage job to a higher salary?

Sure as parents both cp and ncp have a financial obligation to the child(ren) but things do honestly happen.
ChelseNichole
by Chelse on Feb. 13, 2014 at 8:58 PM
I get what you're saying.... When you think about it the way you have presented it... It's easy to think hey she's right. I kind of feel like you have a good point... They should determine what amount of money goes towards supporting and child and that should be it. Of course it changes a little based on the age of the child and all of that..but that's seems like a smart way to do. But there's just so many other factors that go into it that it would never work that way.

In my state though, it's less about the money actually supporting the child, and more about making things equal in both homes. They explained it as for example... Dad is a teacher... Mom is a CEO. Obviously Mom would have a larger salary being a CEO. So they don't want the children to be living at the standard of a CEO in one home and living at the standard of a teacher in the other home. So they try to even it out so that it's and equal lifestyle in both homes. And also so that the kids continue to live the same lifestyle they were used to living when mom and dad were together. In my state, if there's a 50/50 split... The higher earning parent still has to pay child support...to even things out in the other home... Even though both parents have the same amount of time.
DDDaysh
by on Feb. 13, 2014 at 8:59 PM
1 mom liked this
Most people realize that inflation is real and the cost of living increases over time. For that reason alone adjustments are needed.

However the bigger issue is that CS isn't about the ex, it is about the child. If the child would see an increased standard of living if his/her parents were still together, then that standard of living should still increase even if they are apart. Can has never been about providing only a bare minimum to your child, it is about supporting the child despite a split home.
soonergirl980
by Gold Member on Feb. 13, 2014 at 9:00 PM
1 mom liked this

Your problem is that you are looking at it wrong. It isn't the CP that is benefiting it's the CHILD who is also the NCP's child who is benefiting.

ChelseNichole
by Chelse on Feb. 13, 2014 at 9:01 PM
Your second paragraph is spot on.

Quoting DDDaysh: Most people realize that inflation is real and the cost of living increases over time. For that reason alone adjustments are needed.

However the bigger issue is that CS isn't about the ex, it is about the child. If the child would see an increased standard of living if his/her parents were still together, then that standard of living should still increase even if they are apart. Can has never been about providing only a bare minimum to your child, it is about supporting the child despite a split home.
SassyMom25
by Silver Member on Feb. 13, 2014 at 9:05 PM
1 mom liked this

You do realize that the cost of living goes up every year, right. The costs associated with having a child change over time too. You also can't guarantee that either parent will always have the same job or one that pays at least what they are currently making.

I also think that if both parents were truly doing right by their kids financially, there would be no need for COd CS. Together, they would just adjust expenses as the child needs it.  

Birdseed
by Platinum Member on Feb. 13, 2014 at 9:05 PM
2 moms liked this

Personally, I think that CS should be able to be changed more often as the situation requires it. My state doesn't allow a change in under two years unless there's  a major change and even then they might not hear it.

When my DH lost his job and BM was still unemployed, we paid the same CS then as we did when he was making 6 figures.  His fault for not modifying it. I tried.  I paid.  BM later got a good job, but here we are still paying on numbers from years ago!  I think it should be modified again to reflect income.  BOTH PARENTS should be putting money in the pot to care for their kids.  And if they're not emplyed, they either need to have the SP pony up or get a job at McDonalds and be ready to pay to support THEIR KIDS.

I think it should be more easiely modified to reflect the situation.


AmyB118
by NA Rocks on Feb. 13, 2014 at 9:06 PM
Well that could suck for BF occasionally. My youngest god daughters BF was just CO'd to pay for day care along with CS. He will have to pay additional CS until she's no longer in need of day care. Once she no longer needs additional care his CS will be reduced, per BM who doesn't want to take him over the coals. If CS were never modified hed continue to pay for day care even if she's not attending. That's only one example of a valid reason for modification. MD allows for modification hearings every 3 years. It could go up or down dependent on both BPs circumstances. As well, SSs are two years apart. When OSS was emancipated CS was reduced to nearly 1/2 of what it was previously. Would it be fair for NCP to pay CS for kids over 18 until the youngest turns 18? That's def not fair to NCP.

Too many variables to NOT look it over every so often.
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)