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

(minimum 6 characters)

Child Suppprt Payments are too High?

I'm probably going to get slammed for this but it seems that child support payments ordered by the courts is generally higher than what is really needed to take care of a child. I truly mean no disrespect to those receiving child support because I really believe that both parents should be financially responsible. But for instance my bio dad recently told me he pays $700 per month in child support to my half brothers mom. My husband and I have 3 sons together and we don't even spend that much per month on all 3 of them. Only time we would maybe use that much on all 3 is for Christmas and when we have all 3 of them in school and have to shop for school clothes. How are these child support payments figured? What's taken into account to come up with these numbers? Again, no disrespect intended to those receiving them. I'm just curious... Thanks!
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by on Aug. 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Replies (721-730):
brandy1226
by on Aug. 30, 2012 at 3:52 AM
It.should only pay child's expenses not moms expenses.and you have the selfish parents to who up it for self satisfaction to.so the law isn't always write.there should be a limit.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
brandy1226
by on Aug. 30, 2012 at 3:52 AM
It.should only pay child's expenses not moms expenses.and you have the selfish parents to who up it for self satisfaction to.so the law isn't always write.there should be a limit.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
ManicAttack
by on Aug. 30, 2012 at 4:01 AM


Quoting Moniker:


Quoting ManicAttack:


Quoting Moniker:


Quoting ManicAttack:


Quoting Moniker:




What I was saying is, if one parent cannot even provide for THEMSELVES (meaning, they cannot afford a place to live, even on their own, nor pay utilities) the other parent should have custody until arrangements have been made.  Just because the non-custodial parent has a job and is able to provide doesn't mean they should be paying for housing for the custodial parent.  The custodial parent should not depend on CS to take care of the household- it is used for only PART of the child's care.  If the custodial parent cannot provide the other part, maybe they shouldn't have custody.

Also, many parents have different ideas of what it costs to raise a child.  My family was not poor, but I see MANY people here that put their kids in tons of activities that cost a lot of money and expect the other parent to be okay with that, if they're divorced, and that the other parent should have to pay half.  Well, that's not how the world works.  Maybe the other parent can't afford it.  Maybe the other parent doesn't think it's a necessity.  Lifestyles can vary from person to person.  This should be taken into consideration.

I think we are all in agreement and have covered that child support is to cover a portion of the care, not the whole amount. If a custodial parent can't afford  their share without child support, that is not a reason to change custody. If a non custodial parent is paying their portion and the custodial parent is paying their portion but can't afford to pay everything, wait, I'm lost.  If custodial parent is paying their portion that is paying for everything.  You're backtracking somewhere.  I was saying, if the CP becomes unable to support the child completely while receiving CS, it becomes a question of WHY CAN'T THEY?  That is what I am saying.  If NCP is very obviously better suited to support and raise a child compared to CP, then yeah, I think custody should be changed around.  Reason being, the child should have a roof over their head, hot water, electricity, and clothing on their backs.  If CP cannot do this WHILE GETTING a decent amount of CS- the custody situation should be reconsidered. why should they lose custody? Isn't that the whole POINT of child support? If it comes to the point where they can't pay the bills with the child support than that is different. The child shouldn't be homeless or living without basics. If they can pay their share and keep things up with the CS, why should they lose custody? 

You don't need to nanny the custodial parent. If their finances are out of control that will eventually reflect and at that point, custody change might be necessary. I'm well aware of the minimalist idea that step mothers have of raising step children. Not their own children mind you, just step children. I think the courts ought to keep the childrens life style more or less what it was.  The lifestyle is going to change for both parents, so yes, it will change, especially if they were dependent on each other financially to keep them afloat.  This is often the situation I see with divorced parents- one parent gets custody and the NCP is expected to pay out the ass in CS when they really aren't going to be able to afford shit on their own.  While I agree that the child should be kept in the same lifestyle, this is not possible all the time.  It WILL drop- especially if both parents make a less than decent amount of money.  The problem is, the courts often don't give a crap if NCP has things to provide in THEIR home for the child when they visit.  That isn't right.  I hate when I see a kid visiting their other parent and they have to sleep on the couch several nights a week because NCP can only afford a one bedroom place, due to the fact that they are, in retrospect, expected to pay for TWO households, but CP has it way better off financially due to receiving a large amount of CS.  If lifestyle is supposed to be the same, it should be the same in both households, not just one.  Not only that, but often times NCP can't afford to do the fun things CP can or buy them toys, games, etc, so kid ends up resenting having to visit NCP because it's boring or whatever.  It shouldn't be like that.  We all know that as children get older, they need things to keep them occupied- and not just at one house, but both.  And rarely do teenagers want to hang out with their parents for two whole days, doing nothing. It shouldn't suddenly drop because dad's new wife thinks kids don't need this or that. Nor should it suddenly sky rocket because mom always wanted to send her kids to fancy schools or coaches. 


mandi0913
by on Aug. 30, 2012 at 4:14 AM
My ex doesnt pay a dime in cs hes order 65.00 a week for dss i cant work due to medical problems both my sons are disabled and i get 698.00 a month in ssi some months i go without my meds to pay for my dss meds and pay all my bills and sum bills dont get paid just so my boys have there meds i wish my ex would atleast keep the medical coverage hes suppose to have on them. I dont care bout the money if he had insurance for them
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
mandi0913
by on Aug. 30, 2012 at 4:20 AM
O and did i mention my ex makes 4500.00 a week as an contractor for oil lines ran all over us and foreign countries ya our order was done 3 months b4 he started that job and i cant get a modification because i cant afford a car or gas to drive 90 miles to cs court office
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
tiredmama42
by on Aug. 30, 2012 at 4:37 AM
1 mom liked this
I dont receive cs but I did not see where they figured any household expenses into the figures. It was my income and his , daycare, and health insurance. Never asked for anything else to base the figures on than that. In my case he refused to submit any paperwork, taxes etc so the court went by mimimum wage, he was self employed and had no tax records. He still don't contribute a dime so if you get any support be thankful .
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
-KC-
by on Aug. 30, 2012 at 5:11 AM
DH got lucky he barely pays anything. BMs on welfare so he pays through them. They only require him to pay $100 per month for 2 kids, and his pay check isnt that low.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
PP-9
by on Aug. 30, 2012 at 6:13 AM
Well ladies, my husband only pays $210 per month to my step-sons mother. Which is nothing to me. I think they take all the living expenses into account. As well as the second parent minimal wage. Working or not. "They need too" times are hard Now a days.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Mom24munchkins
by on Aug. 30, 2012 at 6:17 AM
If you look at my second post I broke it down a bit and $700 is not a bit unreasonable. I totally agree that BOTH parents should be financial responsible but I also think the parent who has the kid/kids full time should be responsible for a smaller portion on the responsibility. Kids get sick, they have special interests that require a parent to spend time on, the parent who has the kids full time is responsible for ensuring that they get to school, they are also responsible for all daily care of the child (cleaning up after them, cooking, doing their laundry). Imo the responsibility of a non custodial parent isnt as demanding as it is for a custodial parent. Because of that I think it should be more of a 70% vs 30% instead of 50% vs 50%.


Quoting ManicAttack:

Yes, but generally, CS is used for a PART of these things- not all of them.  As a parent, you would already be paying for shelter, utilities, and food, so technically- CS should only cover A PART of what the kids use.

The fact that ONE PARENT is covering $700 a month is a bit much.  What does that leave the other parent to pay?  I believe it should be equal- if one parent is sending $700 a month, the parent receiving better be dropping $700, as well, because CS is only to cover the non-custodial parent's part of child raising.


Quoting Mom24munchkins:

Um, you dont spend $700 a month on food, shelter, utilities, toiletries, clothes, shoes, and hobbies?! Are you kids toddlers? We are very frugal, but my kids eat healthy. We live in a moderate home. Dont have tv/satalite/cable or video games and we EASILY spend that on our three oldest kids who are 9,8, and 5.



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
dalbax2
by on Aug. 30, 2012 at 6:18 AM

WOW!!!!  You really are uninformed.  Payments are based on the person's income and the expenses that the child incurs.....food, heat, lights, medical, personal etc.   700 a month does seem a bit extreme but you didn't mention if this is just for 1 child or more.  Evidently he has a high enough income that the courts feel 700/month is a reasonable cost.  I don't believe for a minute that you don't spend at least that much a month on your 3 kids.  My daughter's ex was ordered to pay 107/week for 2 kids.  YEAH.....that's a laugh.  She is lucky if she gets 20/week  and that is not even done most of the time.  Been since beginning of July w/ nothing at all.  Luckily she doesn't have to depend on it to support the kids but that's not the point.

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)