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

(minimum 6 characters)

Stepmom Central Stepmom Central

S/O of CS Should Cover Everything

Posted by on Jun. 3, 2014 at 3:21 PM
  • 76 Replies
What do you guys think of CS being ordered as a way to equalize households? Is it fair to put financial responsibility on one parent when that parent has no control over the financial decisions or income level of the other parent's household?

What about a sitch where CP has a higher income than NCP, and NCP has EOW visitation. If CS is used as an equalizer then is it acceptable for CP to pay NCP CS?

To be clear, I most certainly feel that both parents need to provide for their children, financially and otherwise. But I feel that CS should be issued for the care of the child, not to subsidize another household for the purposes of equality.
by on Jun. 3, 2014 at 3:21 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
faerie75
by Platinum Member on Jun. 3, 2014 at 3:26 PM
2 moms liked this

 i dont like it when one parent just sits on their ass and doesnt do shit to improve themself. that manner of support order isnt fair.

my state just figures it with both incomes and parenting time. the drawback to that is parents who dont want the responsibility will fight for more just to lower their support amount.

i guess there are drawbacks to all.

leegirl_jm
by Ruby Member on Jun. 3, 2014 at 3:34 PM
4 moms liked this

CS is not alimony, it is the NCP's share of the child (ren) expenses and time in child care which would be based on the average of both parents' income. I think alimony in the case of a long-term marriage would manage the equality between both homes.

Bertieb
by Bronze Member on Jun. 3, 2014 at 3:54 PM

BM used it to finance a nicer home and car for herself. Now it's done and she is having problems financially.

crazyblondemom
by Member on Jun. 3, 2014 at 4:01 PM
This

Quoting leegirl_jm:

CS is not alimony, it is the NCP's share of the child (ren) expenses and time in child care which would be based on the average of both parents' income. I think alimony in the case of a long-term marriage would manage the equality between both homes.

CrunchMaMaBear
by Queen Crunch on Jun. 3, 2014 at 4:04 PM
Agree

Quoting leegirl_jm:

CS is not alimony, it is the NCP's share of the child (ren) expenses and time in child care which would be based on the average of both parents' income. I think alimony in the case of a long-term marriage would manage the equality between both homes.

Derdriu
by Gold Member on Jun. 3, 2014 at 4:10 PM

The state I live in does not take CP income into account when determining what NCP should pay.  The objective is not to equalize the households but to reimburse CP a portion of living expenses.  I think the idea of attempting to equalize households is absurd.  Life is not fair.  Neither CP nor NCP is entitled to more (or less) on account of unwise (or wise) financial decisions... or for that matter, market environment. 

Basing CS on "earning potential" is a tricky business.   An overpaid NCP who is subsequently made redundant and forced to accept employment at a more reasonable pay should have CS adjusted down accordingly.  Generally speaking, people do not choose to be under-employed and will seek to keep as much of their earnings as possible.  For the NCP who does choose to quit and stay home, fair market value for their skill is going to diminish the longer they're out of the work force.  So that one is tough. 

Tinkerbellmama
by Platinum Member on Jun. 3, 2014 at 4:21 PM

This.

Each parent has a responsibility to pay for their proportional share of their child/children's needs. So, NCP pays CS to cover their part of the child/children's financial needs in the CP's home.

Quoting leegirl_jm:

CS is not alimony, it is the NCP's share of the child (ren) expenses and time in child care which would be based on the average of both parents' income. I think alimony in the case of a long-term marriage would manage the equality between both homes.


GlockMom
by Platinum Member on Jun. 3, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Most of the time, the states who use these worksheets, have lower amounts of CS paid out to the CP.  The equalizing formulas usually work more in the NCP favor.  When CS was done for OSS through the state of GA it definitely worked in DH favor.  Before, they did just a straight percentage.  I think the 1st child could get up to 27%, the second could get 22% and the percentages lowered the more kids CS was being paid on.  Well, YSS lived with us so OSS was the only one recieving CS.  Based on a straight percentage DH would have owed nearly $1900 a month...for ONE child.  The worksheet?  They plugged in DH income, the kids in each home BF and BM were parents of and a potential income for BM.  Came to $1009 a month.  Still a huge chunk of change to see go to a junkie and it not get used on the child, but much better than close to double that.  At least the worksheet made it to where when SS had needs his mom wouldn't cover we still could.


WickedPissah
by Cup Cakes on Jun. 3, 2014 at 4:51 PM
3 moms liked this
Things will never be equal between homes, it just can't happen.
runinpinkshoes
by Silver Member on Jun. 3, 2014 at 8:09 PM
1 mom liked this
BM's income is double DH's after CS is received, and custody is 60/40. It's definitely not "equalizing" incomes. BM can afford luxuries while DH struggles to pay bills.

I'm all for kids getting their basic needs met, but the complete imbalance I see in the court system doesn't seem fair or right.

Why would a BM ever have the motivation to earn more money if she can just get more from ex-DH whenever she wants? And why should one person always be having to subsidize another person's life choices or financial decisions?
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)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN