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

(minimum 6 characters)

Mom Confessions Mom Confessions

Some Facts About Child Support

Posted by   + Show Post

Since everyone on here has an opinion about everything, I have worked on a few of my own. So I am going to offer my knowledge to you, and hopefully avoid some confusion and embarassments.

Keep in mind, that the following apply as long as the child(ren) are well cared for-fed and clothed. PLEASE DO NOT PROCEED TO TELL ME HOW A CP YOU KNOW IS A HORRIBLE PARENT AND DOES NOT DESERVE CS. It is for the kids, remember?


  • Child support is not a form of PA.
  • It should not have to be earned. It is for the child, but children also use a home, utilities, food, clothing, etc.
  • It is not money meant to be set aside for a college fund. It can be, but that is not its intended purpose.
  • College funds CAN be created by NCP, if they want to help with those expenses as well as normal living expenses.
  • Child support is usually ordered to help the CP with the costs of raising a child.
  • NCP should pay CS because they are no longer helping with normal day to day costs.
  • Past due child support is $$ that CP has already had to supplement for NCP, so it is all CP's. What they spend that on is no one else's business.
  • Paying CS does not, in the least, mean that NCP is paying for all of the kids' expenses. In most cases, it is not even 1/2 of what the CP ends up spending.

Please, no bashing. I picked this up from another current post, and there was some very nasty exchange going on between the OP and a few other posters. It is totally uncalled for and immature.



I am adding a perfect example of my post, from the comments below:

Quote:

My children were both grown and out of the house before I ever received any cs from my ex. It was a whole 50.00 a month. Give me a break. That didn't even pay for their lunches for a month. Oh I have two children. And back support is mine not to be spent on my grown children I've already raised them and paid for it all by myself. So that little 50. A month I get now is mine and if anyone thinks any different they can kiss my ass. Now I will say I usually spend it on my grandchildren but its still mine to spend as I see fit.


Quote:

Current support: suppliments the expenses of having the child live with you as well as their basic needs.

Back support: since custodial parent paid for said expenses without the aid of the child's other parent, the back support can be spent as the custodial parent sees fit.  







LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. 

by on May. 22, 2012 at 7:45 PM
Replies (41-50):
Nicoleb9
by Emerald Member on May. 22, 2012 at 8:25 PM
Of course you didn't make that distinction but we all know that the majority of CS orders are against fathers. And I absolutely stand by what I said. If a single dad is living in poverty with his kids and receives back child support and decides to go blow it, women would freak. Deny it if you want.


Quoting m3lissa_16:

I have never said mom or dad on this post. I refer to parents who are split as CP and NCP.

Single dads deserve every bit of consideration single moms do.

Quoting Nicoleb9:

You'll never convince them otherwise. They've found a way to justify using child support for themselves. You think they're gonna admit that it's foul? Yeah, let a single dad living in poverty with his kids use back support from the mother to go out to a bar and get trashed because that's how he sees fit to spend the money and watch the moms of cm fall to the floor in seizures.





Quoting BJAponte77:

 I didn't comment to be rude I commented because when you post to cafemom you are posting to get comments in return which is what I did.  I said mother not CP, I meant CP.  It may be theirs but since it's arrears for child support the responsible thing would be to support the child, not the CP's pockets.



Quoting m3lissa_16:



Excuse me? I have yet to comment in that post. Please don't stick your comments in here if your only point is to be rude. If you bothered to read my post, you would see that nowhere on there does it say CS is for the mother. It is for the CP, to help with the kids' costs. Unless it is arrears. In that case, CP has already supplemented it for NCP. If CP has not allowed the children to go hungry, without shelter or food in the time that NCP was not paying CS, then they were, indeed, picking up the slack for NCP. And the $$ is theirs.



Quoting BJAponte77:



 You mean the op and me and you were obviously one of the anon's.  http://www.yourchild1st.com/child_support.shtml



Read up, it's not reimbursement, it's to pay for the child's needs not the mom's wants.






 





Posted on CafeMom Mobile
dee06
by Silver Member on May. 22, 2012 at 8:25 PM
3 moms liked this

The ones that think CS is supposed to be 100% spent on the child must have a husband or bf that has to pay child support. 

Quoting Anonymous:

If child support was supposed to be only "for the child", and not for bills, food, gas, etc...then the check would be made out to the child instead of the parent. This is such a stupid argument!!

ETA: OP I agree with everything you said...it's the ones that think CS is supposed to be 100% spent on the child that I think are stupid.


Anonymous
by Anonymous 4 on May. 22, 2012 at 8:27 PM

No, the third one is absolutely your opinion.  Please provide proof where cse will uphold your claims.

Quoting m3lissa_16:

Actually, my "opinions" are facts. Any child support enforcement agency will uphold my claims.

Quoting Anonymous:

I think if you are trying to pass your opinions off as facts you are an idiot.  Kudos for owning your opinions though.

Quoting m3lissa_16:

haha. They are very much opinions. Ignorant and misguided opinions, I might add.

Quoting Anonymous:

Are you denying that some of these are opinions?

Quoting m3lissa_16:

Again with the name calling, huh? Very mature.

Quoting Anonymous:

Some of these are opinions idiot. 







Anonymous
by Anonymous 6 on May. 22, 2012 at 8:27 PM

good

Sunshine2plus2
by Platinum Member on May. 22, 2012 at 8:28 PM

 My opinion is if you are receiving CS late then when you receive money it can be spent however you like. Why? For me bc I took the money I should of received and already paid for that sport my child wanted to play, those new shoes he wanted, that new video game etc... so why wouldnt I!

m3lissa_16
by on May. 22, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I do not receive CS. It is ordered, but not paid. The children do come first, but why should CP come last, always? When NCP is not paying CS, they don't give accounts to what they did with the $$, when they should have been paying CS. I am all for 50/50 custody, if the other parent is responsible. I would NEVER let my ex keep DD overnight, whether or not he paid CS. I doubt he even knows  her birth date.

Quoting Nicoleb9:

So then why is the desire for the mother to reimburse herself for supporting her own children more important than making up to the children what they went without?
Why aren't the children entitled to be made whole?
What happened to the children coming first?
Shit like this is one of the big reasons why CS causes such resentment. Personally, I'm a big fan of presumed 50/50 custody in all situations unless one parent can prove abuse or neglect. If you don't make your babies with losers, that won't be a problem. No child support. Each side gets the child equal amounts of time. And if it's true that the CS usually doesn't cover 50% of the child's expenses, that'll solve that issue right there. But watch as masses of women panic over the thought.


Quoting m3lissa_16:

Having the basics and having everything that they could have had, if NCP had paid on time, are not the same thing. That is how I can say CP provided everything, but the kids didn't have what they could have had.

Why should CP have to bend over backwards to pick up slack for NCP, and when NCP does decide to do their share, they can't do anything for themselves? 


Quoting Nicoleb9:

Actually my POV is that child support is for the child, whether it's current or past support. You just said yourself that the children go without when the support isn't paid. So in that case, the children absolutely should receive the past support. Sounds like you're just looking for a way to let mom take money intended for her children and use it for herself. You can't have it both ways. Either the kids went without and deserve the past support, or they didn't go without, in which case we can't use that argument anymore. How can you say that the CP provided everything and then turn around and say that the kids suffered?





Quoting m3lissa_16:

Really? LOL I would say that they do suffer when it is not paid b/c CP has to let go of other commodities to pay for the basics. Movies, high priced shoes, maybe even certain groceries. In any case, the children are not getting something they would have otherwise.

It is asinine to expect CP to be in total poverty to get CS. 

In your POV, NCP seems to deserve to get it their way, either way.

Quoting Nicoleb9:

So if past child support belongs to the CP because it's money they've already shoveled out, why do people say that it's the children who suffer when CS isn't paid? Either the child does NOT suffer when it's not paid because the CP makes up for the lack of CS, or the child DOES go without and therefore is entitled to the past due CS.





Which one is it?







LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. 

rose0919
by on May. 22, 2012 at 8:28 PM

yes they are fact! it is  in the federal child support guidlines! and all states must follow them as the minimum. most states go beyond wht the min is and any judge will tell you that.

Quoting m3lissa_16:

Actually, my "opinions" are facts. Any child support enforcement agency will uphold my claims.

Quoting Anonymous:

I think if you are trying to pass your opinions off as facts you are an idiot.  Kudos for owning your opinions though.

Quoting m3lissa_16:

haha. They are very much opinions. Ignorant and misguided opinions, I might add.

Quoting Anonymous:

Are you denying that some of these are opinions?

Quoting m3lissa_16:

Again with the name calling, huh? Very mature.

Quoting Anonymous:

Some of these are opinions idiot. 







Nicoleb9
by Emerald Member on May. 22, 2012 at 8:29 PM
It was still *child* support. Are you the child? If not, it's not for you.

If you got a lump sum from his tax return, that means you had the money to support your child and could use your own money to support yourself.


Quoting mommy.of.3.boys:

Excuse me. I am going to inerject here, and you probably won't like what I have to say. Oh fucking well. In the beginning, my ex-husband didn't think it was his responsibility to help support our son even WITH a court order TELLING him to pay up. So for the first year and a half, *I* supported our son. While *HE* didn't go without, *I* did. *I* wore holes in my pants to work becaue ALL of the money I made went to bills and OUR son. *I* put my needs (ya know, work clothes, shoes, shit I couldn't afford a $10 Walmart haircut for myself),*I* paid daycare on my own, *I* bought food on my own, *I* bought Christmas and Birthday presents on my own. *I* made sure OUR son's life was as "normal" as it was BEFORE his dad caught a case of Douchebag-itis. When they FINALLY garnished his Fed Tax return (to offset the back child support) while OUR son DID get things he wanted (they were WANTS, not NEEDS) you're damn fucking right I bought myself new work clothes, shoes, and finally got my damn hair cut. *I* went without so HE didn't have to. *I* did what ANY good mother would do and put OUR SON first. NEITHER one of us should have had to suffer because his father thought providing for the daughter of the new woman he was with was more important, but he did, and thus *I* did (because I made damn sure OUR son would NOT feel the effects of it). Part of that money WAS "reimbursement" for ME having to do without as a direct result of HIM not doing HIS PART. 

Quoting Nicoleb9:

You'll never convince them otherwise. They've found a way to justify using child support for themselves. You think they're gonna admit that it's foul? Yeah, let a single dad living in poverty with his kids use back support from the mother to go out to a bar and get trashed because that's how he sees fit to spend the money and watch the moms of cm fall to the floor in seizures.





Quoting BJAponte77:

 I didn't comment to be rude I commented because when you post to cafemom you are posting to get comments in return which is what I did.  I said mother not CP, I meant CP.  It may be theirs but since it's arrears for child support the responsible thing would be to support the child, not the CP's pockets.



Quoting m3lissa_16:



Excuse me? I have yet to comment in that post. Please don't stick your comments in here if your only point is to be rude. If you bothered to read my post, you would see that nowhere on there does it say CS is for the mother. It is for the CP, to help with the kids' costs. Unless it is arrears. In that case, CP has already supplemented it for NCP. If CP has not allowed the children to go hungry, without shelter or food in the time that NCP was not paying CS, then they were, indeed, picking up the slack for NCP. And the $$ is theirs.



Quoting BJAponte77:



 You mean the op and me and you were obviously one of the anon's.  http://www.yourchild1st.com/child_support.shtml



Read up, it's not reimbursement, it's to pay for the child's needs not the mom's wants.






 





Posted on CafeMom Mobile
m3lissa_16
by on May. 22, 2012 at 8:30 PM

How is that not a fact? LOL please. It is not intended for that purpose.

Quoting Anonymous:

No, the third one is absolutely your opinion.  Please provide proof where cse will uphold your claims.

Quoting m3lissa_16:

Actually, my "opinions" are facts. Any child support enforcement agency will uphold my claims.

Quoting Anonymous:

I think if you are trying to pass your opinions off as facts you are an idiot.  Kudos for owning your opinions though.

Quoting m3lissa_16:

haha. They are very much opinions. Ignorant and misguided opinions, I might add.

Quoting Anonymous:

Are you denying that some of these are opinions?

Quoting m3lissa_16:

Again with the name calling, huh? Very mature.

Quoting Anonymous:

Some of these are opinions idiot. 








LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. 

Anonymous
by Anonymous 7 on May. 22, 2012 at 8:33 PM
1 mom liked this
Do wat u do but I don't think anyone should be "treating" (which definitions of would vary) themselves with someones money...I thought having children & sacrificing ur own needs was the risk you took..ill get slammed for this but meh oh well
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
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