child-support
S&V Moroz
Hi, I am just curious what kind of child support everyone pays and where
you are (since states and provinces have different guidelines). Also
how often do you see them.
I for one think the amount dad's are ordered to pay is ridiculous...kids
do not cost that much and mom is at least half ways responsible for
their being on the planet!!!
I have 2 step kids (12 and practically 10). We pay $400 a month (not
much compared to lots of people) and we have them for my husband's days
off. He works shifts (7 on-3 off, 7on- 4-off). We live 10 min from
bio-mom and would like 1/2 time (at least) and so would kids, but mom is
control freak and other issues. Anyhow 1/2 time in ur situation would
be easy...but courts won't change agreement unless something is very
wrong at biomom's house (which we tried to prove, but hit that whole
political correctness thing about mother's being incapable of harming
their kids and dad just wanting to stop paying support BS!!). We are in
Alberta, Canada where apparently dad's pay more than anywhere else in
the country. Iknow one guy who pays $800 for one little boy who he does
not get to see b/c the mom won't allow it and the courts will not help
him.
Shawna
PS I am just curious.
SoccerStepMom
There is a ng called alt.child-support where you will find lots of
discussion on this topic and sympathy for your viewpoint. You will
probably want to read awhile before posting :-0 Regards, SSM
SMalt4
>There is a ng called alt.child-support where you will find lots of
>discussion on this topic and sympathy for your viewpoint
I used to read that newsgroup, however it was a spam magnet, and very hard to
get to normal serious posts.
AGENTDBL07
I for one think the amount dad's are ordered to pay is ridiculous...kids do not
cost that much and mom is at least half ways responsible for their being on the
planet!!!
I concur. My husband pays over $1,000 a month EACH for his two children, one of
which no longer ever sees his mom. The other is with her 70% of the time. The
Ex does nothing - no job, no school, nothing. We attempted to get support
reduced when my stepson moved in with us two years ago and were told it would
go UP if we returned to court because my husband had received a raise.
The court system is obscene in the way it favors the mother. Personally I think
it both unjust and archaic.
Christine
Vicki Robinson
In a previous article, agent...@aol.com (AGENTDBL07) said:
>
>The court system is obscene in the way it favors the mother. Personally I think
>it both unjust and archaic.
>
Given your circumstances, I can see your point. How would you address
Jean, who has recently described her 80+ hour work weeks and lack of
material comfort and medical care while her well-off ex contributes
nothing to his children? I'm at a loss to understand how Jean, the
children's mother, is being favored here.
"The court system" is *not* the monolith that people characterize it
as being. Different locales vary widely in both support guidelines
and enforcement, and to suppose that there is anything at all
consistent about it is absurd. Both NCPs and CPs, fathers and
mothers, get favored or screwed. Let's be careful with the
generalizations, and make definitive statements only about our own
situations. Blanket statements, especially critical ones, are bound
to be unjust and offensive to a large number of people, and that's not
what we're here for!
Vicki
--
Visit our wedding at http://www.rit.edu/~vjrnts/wedding.html and
sign our guest book! The alt.folklore.urban FAQ and archive can
be found at http://www.urbanlegends.com. Take a look, if you
have a week to spare.
Sian Lee Reid
> Hi, I am just curious what kind of child support everyone pays and where
> you are (since states and provinces have different guidelines). Also
> how often do you see them.
>
> I for one think the amount dad's are ordered to pay is ridiculous...kids
> do not cost that much and mom is at least half ways responsible for
> their being on the planet!!!
>
> I have 2 step kids (12 and practically 10). We pay $400 a month (not
> much compared to lots of people) and we have them for my husband's days
> off. He works shifts (7 on-3 off, 7on- 4-off). We live 10 min from
> bio-mom and would like 1/2 time (at least) and so would kids, but mom is
> control freak and other issues. Anyhow 1/2 time in ur situation would
> be easy...but courts won't change agreement unless something is very
> wrong at biomom's house (which we tried to prove, but hit that whole
> political correctness thing about mother's being incapable of harming
> their kids and dad just wanting to stop paying support BS!!). We are in
> Alberta, Canada where apparently dad's pay more than anywhere else in
> the country. Iknow one guy who pays $800 for one little boy who he does
> not get to see b/c the mom won't allow it and the courts will not help
> him.
>
> Shawna
>
> PS I am just curious.
I'm in Ontario, which brought out new guidelines for child support last
year. Our support was negotiated under the previous laws, and has been
grandfathered. My stepkids are 8 and 12, they are supposed to be here 42%
of the time. Stepson will no longer come here, and mom is unwilling to
enforce the custody agreement, however, she is not receiving any extra
support because of this (not mutually agreed upon) change. We pay
$900/mo, which is then deductible from their father's taxable income.
FYI: under the new guidelines (which apparently don't automatically apply
if the children spend more than 40% of the time in the second home) we
would be paying close to $1200/mo, and it would not be deductible.
Sian
mer...@hotmail.com
In article <En7tK...@xcski.com>,
vjr...@xcski.com (Vicki Robinson) wrote:
>
> In a previous article, agent...@aol.com (AGENTDBL07) said:
>
> >
> >The court system is obscene in the way it favors the mother. Personally I
think
> >it both unjust and archaic.
> "The court system" is *not* the monolith that people characterize it
> as being. Different locales vary widely in both support guidelines
> and enforcement, and to suppose that there is anything at all
> consistent about it is absurd. Both NCPs and CPs, fathers and
> mothers, get favored or screwed.
[clip] AMEN!! Sometimes I think I'm the only stepmom here whose husband
and his ex-wife have a reasonable child support agreement. They went
through counseling and mediation, and came up with an agreement in which
each contributes $ to childcare expenses, the % determined by relative
incomes. There have been some disagreements from time to time, but
nothing like the problems I see here.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Maddy
My husband pays his ex-wife nearly $700/month for his two boys, plus another
$350 for child care. And this is supposed to be only 60% of the total
amount she supposedly spends on the children. Yeah, right! She is working
full time and making a decent salary. It is truly outrageous. My husband
wanted 50/50 custody but his ex-wife said "no way". Besides wanting as
little influence by my husband as possible in his children's lives, she did
not want to forfeit all of that child support (which she would have to do if
it was joint custody). So, I agree, I don't think it is equitable and
fair. By the way, we live in Washington state and I have no idea if this is
typical of most other states in the United States.
Shane Bennett
I live in Arkansas and my husband pays $50 per week for his daughter. We
see her every other weekend, three days after Thanksgiving and she spends
the night on December 23. We usually get her for two or three days before
or after that. We get her on the afternoon of Christmas Day. We get her
two nonconsecutive weeks in the summer. That should go up to three weeks
this year, but when approached with it last summer in preparation, bio mom
said no way. They live less than 1 mile from us.
S&V Moroz wrote in message <34C76B...@ibm.net>...
S&V Moroz
AGENTDBL07 wrote:
>
>
> I concur. My husband pays over $1,000 a month EACH for his two children, one of
> which no longer ever sees his mom. The other is with her 70% of the time. The
> Ex does nothing - no job, no school, nothing. We attempted to get support
> reduced when my stepson moved in with us two years ago and were told it would
> go UP if we returned to court because my husband had received a raise.
>
> it both unjust and archaic.
>
That is horrific Christine!!!!! What does your husband do for a
living?? He is paying alimony as well if his ex does not work. Where
so you live??
Shawna
Luke and Dawn
I'm amazed at these large child support payments! I live in Louisiana
and I don't know anyone that recieves or pays anywhere near these stated
amounts. I'm supposed to get $250 a month. Most people around here react
with surprise when they hear this, because it is so much. I only have
one child. The only reason it is so high is because my ex offered that
amount in the support hearing. He doesn't, however, pay that. I get a
stray $50 to $75 when SE gives him some empty threat. Around here the CP
is lucky if the NCP is ordered to pay more than $150 a month.
Dawn Brouillette
Lesley J. Engelson
S&V Moroz wrote:
>
> Hi, I am just curious what kind of child support everyone pays and where
> you are (since states and provinces have different guidelines). Also
> how often do you see them.
>
> I for one think the amount dad's are ordered to pay is ridiculous...kids
> do not cost that much and mom is at least half ways responsible for
> their being on the planet!!!
>
> I have 2 step kids (12 and practically 10). We pay $400 a month (not
> much compared to lots of people) and we have them for my husband's days
> off. He works shifts (7 on-3 off, 7on- 4-off). We live 10 min from
> bio-mom and would like 1/2 time (at least) and so would kids, but mom is
> control freak and other issues. Anyhow 1/2 time in ur situation would
> be easy...but courts won't change agreement unless something is very
> wrong at biomom's house (which we tried to prove, but hit that whole
> political correctness thing about mother's being incapable of harming
> their kids and dad just wanting to stop paying support BS!!). We are in
> Alberta, Canada where apparently dad's pay more than anywhere else in
> the country. Iknow one guy who pays $800 for one little boy who he does
> not get to see b/c the mom won't allow it and the courts will not help
> him.
>
> Shawna
>
when we have the kids for 6 weeks. Only $75.00/week relief. This is for
3 kids age 14, 10,9. The mother works and gets $26,000.00 per year.
To make ends meet, I need to work full time since I decided to have a
nice home where we can comfortably fit my 3 kids and his 3 kids.
Lesley
AGENTDBL07
Shawna wrote:
That is horrific Christine!!!!! What does your husband do for a
live??
He works for a multinational security components company. Yes, he does pay
alimony - his total payments to his ex are over $50,000/year. She has not
worked in 15 years. We live in California. My experience with the courts on
this matter have led me to believe they are appallingly unjust.
As to Vicki's comments below, I assume that it obviates the issue that I am
speaking from my experience and that of others with whom I have spoken. And
yes, my conclusion is that the court system in my state is disfuntional and the
onus of responsibility - financial or otherwise - is on the man. On a myriad of
issues in our settlement- child support, custody ,finances, life insurance,
visitation, the actual settlement, etc. the Ex was given the "benefit of the
doubt".
I understand that this is in no way indicative of other states and that there
are women who have experienced the opposite situation. I welcome their
opinions. Are we so easily offended in this group that we have to phrase things
a certain way? These are my experiences and the conclusions I have drawn from
them.
Christine
Vicki wrote:
Given your circumstances, I can see your point. How would you address Jean,
who has recently described her 80+ hour work weeks and lack of material comfort
and medical care while her well-off ex contributes nothing to his children?
I'm at a loss to understand how Jean, the children's mother, is being favored
here.
"The court system" is *not* the monolith that people characterize it
as being. Different locales vary widely in both support guidelines
and enforcement, and to suppose that there is anything at all
consistent about it is absurd. Both NCPs and CPs, fathers and
Vicki Robinson
In a previous article, agent...@aol.com (AGENTDBL07) said:
>As to Vicki's comments below, I assume that it obviates the issue that I am
>speaking from my experience and that of others with whom I have spoken.
I'm not sure I understand this; do you mean that my comments somehow
ignored your experience, or made it irrelevant? Not at all!
>And
>yes, my conclusion is that the court system in my state is disfuntional and the
>onus of responsibility - financial or otherwise - is on the man. On a myriad of
>issues in our settlement- child support, custody ,finances, life insurance,
>visitation, the actual settlement, etc. the Ex was given the "benefit of the
>doubt".
>
And, as I said, I can see where your experience validates this view.
But, I'll ask you again, how does Jean's experience support your view?
Or my experience, in which my ex and I mediated an agreement that has
worked for both of us? If you insist on making blanket statements,
you invalidate different experiences that other women and men on this
newsgroup have had. I don't doubt that you found that in your case,
and the cases of some other people, the courts have functioned in the
way that you describe. However, I think it's worth noting that *lots*
of other people have had different experiences. It's hard to say with
any authority whose experience reflects the norms and whose are just
abberations.
>I understand that this is in no way indicative of other states and that there
>are women who have experienced the opposite situation. I welcome their
>opinions. Are we so easily offended in this group that we have to phrase things
>a certain way? These are my experiences and the conclusions I have drawn from
>them.
>
And that's a fine way to say it. But yes, if I were a single mother whose
ex refused to accept any responsibility for his own flesh-and-blood,
I would be deeply offended at your presumption that the courts always
act to screw over the non-custodial male partner in favor of showering the
undeserving woman with prodigiously unfair awards. There is no doubt
whatsoever that this happens, and I would be enraged as well if that
were my experience. But the opposite happens too, and making
generalizations about what the courts always/never do doesn't
facilitate dialogue.
S&V Moroz
That is very interesting Dawn. How do they calculate support in
Louisiana? Here in Alberta, Canada they take a percentage of the NCP's
GROSS pay. The CP income is not considered!!!
My husband loses 1/3 of his gross pay to taxes (remember I live in
Canada..we have very high taxes). By the time taxes come off and we pay
the support his ex has as more to live on than we do with her pay, the
child tax benefit (monthly monies given by the government--family
allowance), she has more of an income than we do.
Shawna
Vicki Robinson
In a previous article, S&V Moroz <mo...@ibm.net> said:
>That is very interesting Dawn. How do they calculate support in
>Louisiana? Here in Alberta, Canada they take a percentage of the NCP's
>GROSS pay. The CP income is not considered!!!
>
No kidding? In New York, there is a set percentage of the *couple's*
gross income that is presumed to go to raising the kids. It varies
according to the number of kids. Each parent is assessed a portion of
that amount proportional to his or her contribution to the joint
income. A few things are added on to that, such as day care, and
those are assessed proportionately as well.
>My husband loses 1/3 of his gross pay to taxes (remember I live in
>Canada..we have very high taxes). By the time taxes come off and we pay
>the support his ex has as more to live on than we do with her pay, the
>child tax benefit (monthly monies given by the government--family
>allowance), she has more of an income than we do.
You can deduct your child support from your income for tax purposes,
can't you? In the US, the NCP pays taxes on the amount that he or she
pays in child support, and the CP does not pay tax on the amount that
he or she receives. Alimony is tax-deductible for the payer, and the
payee must declare that amount on his or her tax return. My ex gets
the personal exemption for both of our children on his taxes (which is
a nice deduction from his taxable income) because he pays 2/3 of their
support.
This arrangement, when I was single, made my income roughly equal to
my ex-husband's. I bore all of the children's expenses with the
exception of medical insurance, because his employer paid a far
higher percentage of the premium for family coverage than mine does.
Sian Lee Reid
> You can deduct your child support from your income for tax purposes,
> can't you? In the US, the NCP pays taxes on the amount that he or she
> pays in child support, and the CP does not pay tax on the amount that
> he or she receives. Alimony is tax-deductible for the payer, and the
> payee must declare that amount on his or her tax return. My ex gets
> the personal exemption for both of our children on his taxes (which is
> a nice deduction from his taxable income) because he pays 2/3 of their
> support.
>
The rules changed recently, Vicki. For support orders made before May
1996 (I think), support is deductible for the payer and taxable to the
payee. However, for awards made since that date, the payer is taxed and
the payee is not. Alimony is still exempt for the payer. Personal
exemptions for the children MUST be claimed by the parent who is deemed to
have 'primary residence'... if neither parent has 'primary residence' then
they are taken by the parent with the LOWER income. The new guidelines,
as the original poster indicated, are based on the NCPs gross income, do
not take into account the financial situation of the custodial parent,
and, because they are NOT tax deductible, can result in MUCH higher 'real
dollar' support obligations for the NCP.
SusanH9876
>Hi, I am just curious what kind of child support everyone pays and where
>you are (since states and provinces have different guidelines). Also
>how often do you see them.
>
Here in Alabama, on my husband's annual salary of $30,000, our agreement is to
pay for 2 kids:
$600 child support
$200 monthly for additional medical insurance premium;
$100 per month on average for medical & dental expenses;
$105 per month for orthodontic expenses x 4 years (& $2,000 down)
$150 per month extracurricular activities
We voluntarily spend approximately $700 per year on school clothes, and
frequently buy school supplies and other necessities.
In addition, the ex got $100,000 cash from the sale of the house (which was a
gift from my husband's parents), and 4 years of alimony as she chose not to
work, although she was trained as a nurse.
If you do the math, you will see that my husband has had very little income to
live on for the past five years -- and in fact, until we married, he lived in a
dilapidated rental house next to a federal housing project in a neighborhood
most people would not want to frequent. In addition to running his business,
he also did yard work and odd jobs in order to put food on his table. He
typically worked 6 1/2 days a week.
My working has made the entire difference in our lifestyle -- as well, his
parents are quite wealthy and have helped us move into a beautiful home on the
river -- I'm sure the ex knows the source of our "additional income" from the
in-laws but she can't touch it, obviously. Otherwise, if she thought there was
money left to get, she'd be trying. :-)
S&V Moroz
Vicki Robinson wrote:
> >
> No kidding? In New York, there is a set percentage of the *couple's*
> gross income that is presumed to go to raising the kids. It varies
> according to the number of kids. Each parent is assessed a portion of
> that amount proportional to his or her contribution to the joint
> income. A few things are added on to that, such as day care, and
> those are assessed proportionately as well.
government--family
This is much the same here in Canada.
> You can deduct your child support from your income for tax purposes,
> can't you? In the US, the NCP pays taxes on the amount that he or she
> pays in child support, and the CP does not pay tax on the amount that
> he or she receives. Alimony is tax-deductible for the payer, and the
> payee must declare that amount on his or her tax return. My ex gets
> the personal exemption for both of our children on his taxes (which is
> a nice deduction from his taxable income) because he pays 2/3 of their
> support.
My husband gets to claim it for tax purposes, but that recently
changed. Any court orders now are not tax deductible and the CP
doesn't have to claim it. The CP would have to go back to court to get
htat changed...thankfully in my case she won't because she knows it will
be countered for more time with the kids, less support and possible full
custody due to her neglective/abusive behavior.
>
> This arrangement, when I was single, made my income roughly equal to
> my ex-husband's. I bore all of the children's expenses with the
> exception of medical insurance, because his employer paid a far
> higher percentage of the premium for family coverage than mine does.
Sounds likeyou have a workable relationship with your ex and that is
great. However, after paying child support we have $1600 a month to live
on. After paying for our mortgage (which is only slightly higher than
renting a decent 2 bedroom apartment), paying bills etc, we have to
watch what we buy for food. My husband has a second part-time job and I
work odd jobs to make up the rest. We drive old vehicles, our clothes
are 5-10 years old and we buy neccesities like shoes, boots and coats
for ourselves on credit. The ex has a brand new '95 vehicle, went to
Hawaii this year, Los Vegas two years in a row prior to this and always
wears the latest fashions. We look after my s/d hair cuts because her
mother stopped (she wanted it long..but it still needs trimming) and my
s/s too (he likes it buzzed and we have clippers) Then she turns around
and tells us to buy school supplies, winter clothes for the kids etc and
tells the kids the support is only for food!!!!
I resent the fact that she goes out and buys herself new things
(dishwasher, new linoleum included) but does not purchase the kids
neccesary items. She is currently refusing to pay my s/d school
fees...told her to tellus it was our responsibility!! That is BS...she
has primary residence and looking after such things is her job and that
is why we pay support!!!! And meanwhile my husband and I and our son
live in second hand clothes and I feel guitly buying my son new winter
boots.
She has actually told my husband that I should got to work so we can pay
her more support so she doesn't have to work so much!! Funny how she
wants me to be finacially responsible for our kids, yet does not accept
that I am a member of their family!!!!
Luke and Dawn
S&V Moroz wrote:
> That is very interesting Dawn. How do they calculate support in
> Louisiana? Here in Alberta, Canada they take a percentage of the NCP's
> GROSS pay. The CP income is not considered!!!
>
The lawyer explained it this way. They add up the expenses of raising
the child in the manner that he is accustomed to. So they take into
consideration a percentage of the CP's rent and utilities and how much is
spent on clothes for the child and food and such. Then they divide the
total in half and that is the CS amount. Can everyone see the flaw in
this plan? It makes no difference how much money either parent makes or
if the child is "accustomed" to living in poverty.
Dawn
Dawn Brouillette
lbroui...@cp-tel.net
Vicki Robinson
In a previous article, S&V Moroz <mo...@ibm.net> said:
>Vicki Robinson wrote:
>
>> >
>> No kidding? In New York, there is a set percentage of the *couple's*
>> gross income that is presumed to go to raising the kids. It varies
>> according to the number of kids. Each parent is assessed a portion of
>> that amount proportional to his or her contribution to the joint
>> income. A few things are added on to that, such as day care, and
>> those are assessed proportionately as well.
>government--family
>
>This is much the same here in Canada.
OK, now I'm confused. There have been two other Canadian posters
who've said that the custodial parent's income is *not* considered in
deciding NCP support.
I am not looking to start a war about who pays more than anyone else
in the world, but in the US the states have the right/responsibility
to set support standards. Is that a provincial function in Canada,
or is it federal? (My husband is Canadian, but he and his ex
negotiated their own agreement and simply presented it to the court,
which accepted it, so I don't know how it would have gone if it had
been left to the court to decide.)
>
>Sounds likeyou have a workable relationship with your ex and that is
>great.
We do, pretty much. He wanted an adjustment made when I remarried,
and we went back to mediation. The mediator said that we could make
any arrangement we wished, but, since he was already paying $500 a
month less than the courts would have ordered, he was taking a chance
that the court might object to lessening that even more and decide to
change the arrangement so that he was paying the full shot that NY's
formula says that he owes. He decided not to take the chance.
>However, after paying child support we have $1600 a month to live
>on. After paying for our mortgage (which is only slightly higher than
>renting a decent 2 bedroom apartment), paying bills etc, we have to
>watch what we buy for food. My husband has a second part-time job and I
>work odd jobs to make up the rest.
>
>I resent the fact that she goes out and buys herself new things
>(dishwasher, new linoleum included) but does not purchase the kids
>neccesary items.
[snippage for bandwidth, not because it isn't important.]
>
>She has actually told my husband that I should got to work so we can pay
>her more support so she doesn't have to work so much!! Funny how she
>wants me to be finacially responsible for our kids, yet does not accept
>that I am a member of their family!!!!
I have to say that it *is* hard to be a stay-at-home mom when you
marry a guy who has children from a previous life. I never have been
at home, I've always worked, because that's what I wanted, but it
turns out that it would have been necessary as well. And boy, oh boy,
was I ever glad of it when my first husband and I broke up! But it
should be ideally each couple's choice.
Have you considered asking her to come to mediation to talk about an
adjustment? Of course, she'll laugh in your face first, but she might
change her mind if she thought you'd go to court on it. If you
document what you spend over and above the support you might be able
to build a case. (One persuasive argument for mediation is that she
then has some control over the outcome, which is not the case in a
court case.)
Now my ex pays almost the same amount that my husband pays *his* ex.
We joke that my ex should just send *his* ex the check and cut out the
middle-man.
Ellyding
We pay over $1,200 a month in child support for our stepdaughter. It increases
every time my husband gets a raise. I used to think it was too much, but my
husband made me think differently. Child support is to be used to keep that
child in the same financial shape her or she would be in if his or her parents
were still married. Worrying about how the ex spends the money is more hassle
than it's worth. We're not doing bad since I work too, but we could sure use
the money we mail off every month. The thing I always remember is it isn't the
child's fault the parents got divorced. They should be raised in as close as
possible the same lifestyle as they would have it their parents were still
together.
I often times question what my husband's ex is doing with her money. After
several years of paying this, I know it's not something I should be worrying
about if I see that she's getting all the essentials to live. His ex purchased
a home before we did, got a new car. It was very hard to hear about this for
me. When we first got married everything we'd purchased was reported back to
his ex by my stepdaughter after every visit. Often times she was grilled by
her mom on the telephone during a visit. It's much more difficult on the child
than on us.
His divorce papers very specifically state he is to pay 17% of his gross pay
and he has never missed a payment. I hear what people receive to raise a child
from their ex's and can't believe it. Why make the kids suffer?
AGENTDBL07
Perhaps this disagreement is becoming one of semantics. I in no way would
invalidate either Jean or your experiences. Of the three of us, you certainly
appear to have the only reasonable arrangement. But I would still bet it is the
most rare. I applaud you - and all the other parties involved - for it . I wish
it had been an option for us, but it was not.
I do not doubt there are many women in Jean's place. I personally know of one
such person. I would be curious what state Jean lives in.
Perhaps it boils down to the effectiveness of the attorneys involved as much as
the court system. Since my husband's ex's atttorney informed her WE would have
to pay all her attorney fees, she figured "What the Hell?" and took us to the
cleaners.Her attitude was to take us down with her regardless of the cost. My
husband is successful, educated, from a wealthy family, attractive - the ex is
uneducated, from a poor family, never held a job, frail. Combined with a
manipulative attorney, she was able to play "poor helpless me" incredibly
effectively. NOTHING about our experience was equitable - or even within the
realm of reason. I still believe this is at least in part due to the
presumptions of the court and the precedents within our state.
My intention is in no way to offend other posters. But I have not seen a shred
of reason or justice in any of our numerous excursions to the California
divorce court, and I have absolutely no tolerance for the system. I HOPE it is
different in other states.
Christine
Vicki wrote:
Vicki
Sian Lee Reid
> In a previous article, S&V Moroz <mo...@ibm.net> said:
>
> >Vicki Robinson wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> No kidding? In New York, there is a set percentage of the *couple's*
> >> gross income that is presumed to go to raising the kids. It varies
> >> according to the number of kids. Each parent is assessed a portion of
> >> that amount proportional to his or her contribution to the joint
> >> income. A few things are added on to that, such as day care, and
> >> those are assessed proportionately as well.
> >government--family
> >
> >This is much the same here in Canada.
>
> OK, now I'm confused. There have been two other Canadian posters
> who've said that the custodial parent's income is *not* considered in
> deciding NCP support.
>
> I am not looking to start a war about who pays more than anyone else
> in the world, but in the US the states have the right/responsibility
> to set support standards. Is that a provincial function in Canada,
> or is it federal? (My husband is Canadian, but he and his ex
> negotiated their own agreement and simply presented it to the court,
> which accepted it, so I don't know how it would have gone if it had
> been left to the court to decide.)
>
The federal government literature I received stated that the new formula
was to determine what percentage of gross income should be paid by the
non-custodial parent to support the children because the custodial parent
was already assuming a similar proportion of costs due to the fact that
they were the custodial parent.
Parents have the option of negotiating any level of settlement they wish;
if they can agree on it, the courts will generally accept it. The
guidelines are intended to be used in the case where the parties cannot
agree on the appropriate level of support, and to give the people involved
an idea of what the court considers 'reasonable' in sole custody
situations.
The level of government responsible for child support regulation is
complicated. The income tax rules are set by the federal government, but
the collection, enforcement and determination of actual child support is a
provincial responsibility.
Hope this helps!
Sian
Sian Lee Reid
In article <34CD80...@cp-tel.net>, Luke and Dawn
<lbroui...@cp-tel.net> wrote:
In situations where there is joint custody, it also does not take into
account that presumably the 'NCP' ALSO has to maintain a furnished
bedroom, toys, clothes etc...
Vicki Robinson
In a previous article, slr...@alfred.carleton.ca (Sian Lee Reid) said:
>In situations where there is joint custody, it also does not take into
>account that presumably the 'NCP' ALSO has to maintain a furnished
>bedroom, toys, clothes etc...
The furniture in my kids' room at the ex's house came from our joint
residence. The toys and books that the kids have there were paid for by me,
since I am the parent with physical custody (though we have joint legal
custody). The clothes travel with the kids; none are stored at dad's house,
they all come home to me for washing.
He feeds them when they are with him, and he buys them gifts for their
birthdays and Christmas. Otherwise, I am responsible for all costs of their
upbringing, to come from the amount that he provides and the additional
support that I provide.
Vicki
--
Vicki Robinson
<blink><a href="http://www.rit.edu/~vjrnts/binky.html">BINKY!</a></blink>
Visit my home page at <a href="http://www.rit.edu/~vjrnts"> Vicki's Home Page
</a> and sign my guest book. Millions have!
AGENTDBL07
Is her name Susan?! I think we deal with the same Ex!!
Someone wrote:
Then she turns around and tells us to buy school supplies, winter clothes for
the kids etc and tells the kids the support is only for food!!!!
I resent the fact that she goes out and buys herself new things
(dishwasher, new linoleum included) but does not purchase the kids neccesary
items. She is currently refusing to pay my s/d school fees...told her to
tellus it was our responsibility!! That is BS...she has primary residence and
looking after such things is her job and that is why we pay support!!!! And
meanwhile my husband and I and our son live in second hand clothes and I feel
guitly buying my son new winter boots.
She has actually told my husband that I should got to work so we can pay her
AGENTDBL07
The point is this is not taken into consideration. We had to buy all new stuff
for the kids while the CP kept the stuff from the marriage. Furnishings,
clothes, etc. are expensive - not to mention stereos, skis, other sports eqt,
etc.
In a previous article, slr...@alfred.carleton.ca (Sian Lee Reid) said:
>In situations where there is joint custody, it also does not take into
>account that presumably the 'NCP' ALSO has to maintain a furnished
>bedroom, toys, clothes etc...
Vicki Robinson
In a previous article, agent...@aol.com (AGENTDBL07) said:
>
>The point is this is not taken into consideration. We had to buy all new stuff
>for the kids while the CP kept the stuff from the marriage. Furnishings,
>clothes, etc. are expensive - not to mention stereos, skis, other sports eqt,
>etc.
>
Taken into consideration by whom? I'm genuinely clueless about this; we
negotiated our own separation (which was rolled into the divorce
documents) with the aid of a mediator. My husband and his ex did the same,
all on their own. I honestly don't know who gets to decide who gets the
jointly owned furnishings and property if the couple can't work it out
themselves. We made a list of everything that we owned (gee was that ever
fun), separated out property that had been brought to the marriage by each
of us (each person retained ownership of property brought into the
marriage), assigned a dollar value to what was left and tried to divide it
up roughly equally. We looked at gifts according to the giver; things
from his family he got first dibs on, and things from mine, I got first
call. The only real argument was over a set of 8 very expensive wine
glasses. Each of us tried to make the other take them, because they
counted too heavily. We finally split them, each taking 4. He got the
better furniture, because the kids wouldn't be around to pound them into
dust as often as at my place; I got the yard and garden equipment because
I was buying a house, he was going into a townhouse. And so on. We also
divided the kids' things, some to his house, most to mine. Now they are
much older, and the things that they have at his house have been acquired
since we split. I have to say that they don't have stereos at his place
(and if he wants them to have them, he can buy them, I'm afraid - they can
live with his stereo at his house), and sports equipment just travels with
them.
I assumed that some kind of similar process went on in a lawyer-controlled
divorce as well, but maybe not. (We had a lawyer who put our mediated
agreement into legalese for us, and then one who actually went to court when
we decided to do the divorce, six years after we separated, but no other
attorney-input.) If one spouse gets all of the marital property, isn't
there some kind of balance in some other way? How does a lawyer go about
snatching *everything* for his or her client? How does the opposing lawyer
let that happen? What about community property, in states where it exists?
Doesn't that assume a 50-50 ownership of marital assets?
How confusing this all is.
S&V Moroz
Well Vicki,
I'm not exactly sure what formula they are using these days since the
change...May '97...but it was a formula that was still biased against
Dad before too. Under the new guidelines men are supposed to pay less,
but the courts still use the old formula most times. But the CP's
income is NOT looked at.....only the time Dad has the kids. This set
up only makes custodial mother's fight against joint custody and
reasonable access.
In my case mediation would not work. The bio-mom is (in my opinion
psychotic......she has been hospitalized twice recently and on
medication) completely unreasonable. She does not consider what the
kids want..they are 12 and 10 and if they request more time with us she
flips and makes everyones life difficult. She has no reason to deny
kids more time here..other than she is scared to lose the money. All of
her actions reinforce that she only wants the support......the only
reason the older child exists is because she was a trap to get my hubby
to hang around and pay the bills!!! And unfortunately the older child
is more neglected/abused than the younger one.
If the woman were reasonable then there would be a 1/2 time plan going
on (joint custody is there) and she would attempt to work with us to
solve behavior/schooling issues. However, she currently only calls to
say *girl* did this (never calls to say what *son* does wrong), but
won't discuss how we can solve it together!!
Shawna
S&V Moroz
Ellyding wrote:
>
> We pay over $1,200 a month in child support for our stepdaughter. It increases
> every time my husband gets a raise.
You have a good attitude...but it seems the situation is different.
My *kids* are emotionally abused and they go without many things because
their mother refuses to invest time or money into them. We have tried
to enrol them in things like soccer with our own money but their mother
will not allow it because "it conflicts with her interests". The money
we pay is low compared to what she would get now....but she doesn't use
on the kids!!!! That is my beef....she refuses to buy winter clothes,
pay school fees, feild trip costs etc. That is what this money is
for!!!! It would not be an issue if she used it for the kids.
As for keeping the kids in the same 'financial situation"...well they
were in poverty when the divorce occured and both sides have moved up
the income scale. But I don't buy this anyhow...how about the kids
whose parents stay together yet Dad loses his job and they all of a
sudden have to survive on Mom's income only.....say BYE-BYE
hockey/gymnastics/musci lesson etc!!!!! We all go thru changing
economics and our lifestyles reflect it...kids need to learn to deal
with this.
I agree with you that the kids should not get caught in the middle
though....but mine do because they go without!!! And we always make
sure they have what is needed.......I make sure my s/d gets her hair cut
regularily because her mother hasn't for 4 years! I will spend $10
bucks on her and wait till next month to get mine cut! And they both
get new shoes before Dad and I do!
Shawna
S&V Moroz
There would be no flaw in that plan Dawn if they caluculated the child's
actual cost!!!
Again I don't feel the child's *current* lifestyle needs to be
maintained. the NCP has lots of expenses to incur after divorce (new
accomodations, furniture, toys etc).
The kids need to be fed and clothed and schooled......and not with the
most expensive,trendy items. Any costs above and beyond these (
extracurricular activities) should be discussed and settled by parents.
In my opinion it should be automatic 1/2 joint custody...disputed if
reasons for dispute or one parent is not able to do this. Then if mom
has kid 1/2 time and dad has him 1/2 time each incurs equal costs and no
support is payed.
Kids do not cost as much as NCP are expected to pay..if they do then I
cannot afford the one I have......
Shawna
S&V Moroz
>
> The furniture in my kids' room at the ex's house came from our joint
> residence. The toys and books that the kids have there were paid for by me,
> since I am the parent with physical custody (though we have joint legal
> custody). The clothes travel with the kids; none are stored at dad's house,
> they all come home to me for washing.
>
> He feeds them when they are with him, and he buys them gifts for their
> birthdays and Christmas. Otherwise, I am responsible for all costs of their
> upbringing, to come from the amount that he provides and the additional
> support that I provide.
>
This is rare Vicki......most NCP's have to refurnish for the kids, while
the Cp gets the beds, toys etc. My husband stopped asking his ex to send
clothes because she sent old, wholly, ratty stained clothes. Also
because she refused to send clothes one time when my husband had planned
a trip out of town. She did not want him to leave the city (to take the
kids to see Grandma and Granpa) so didn't send clothes...he went anyway
and found old farm clothes to put the kids in for the weekend and went
promptly out and bought second hand stuff for the kids after that!!!
Shawna
S&V Moroz
AGENTDBL07 wrote:
>
> Is her name Susan?! I think we deal with the same Ex!!
>
No its Shawna...but Susan to deals with the same one......scary eh!!!!
Shawna
S&V Moroz
You are rare Vicki....
I'm not sure how it is suposed to work...only that the *women* by and
large get the kids, home etc.
I heard of one guy who was the primary care giver and when the Divorce
happened mom got custody and everything!!!!! And here the argument has
always been that Mom usually gets cutody because she is usually the
primary care giver!! **baffled***
Shawna
Tim and Terri-Lei Robertson
AGENTDBL07 wrote:
>
> Shawna wrote:
> That is horrific Christine!!!!! What does your husband do for a
> living?? He is paying alimony as well if his ex does not work. Where do you
> live??
>
> He works for a multinational security components company. Yes, he does pay
> alimony - his total payments to his ex are over $50,000/year. She has not
> worked in 15 years. We live in California. My experience with the courts on
> this matter have led me to believe they are appallingly unjust.
>
> yes, my conclusion is that the court system in my state is disfuntional and the
> issues in our settlement- child support, custody ,finances, life insurance,
> visitation, the actual settlement, etc. the Ex was given the "benefit of the
> doubt".
>
> are women who have experienced the opposite situation. I welcome their
> opinions. Are we so easily offended in this group that we have to phrase things
> a certain way? These are my experiences and the conclusions I have drawn from
> them.
>
>
Christine..
I agree with your statements. While there are situations were single
parents, moms or dads, are living in hardships because an ex won't do
their part, those cases at least get media attention and legislation
that punishes the rest of us who are contributing our legal requirements
and much more.
In my case, my husband and I both pay child support, totalling almost
$2,000 a month. This does not include medical, tuition,
extra-curricular activities, and a myraid of other things. I too agree
that the courts could care less about the NCP's ability to survive. My
husbands ex chooses to live far above her means and we have to pay for
it. She has filed bankruptcy twice and yet continues to give the kids
beyond what is economically feasible. And the court jumps right in and
says to my husband, you're paying half with no concern that it puts us
beyond our means. It would be nice if every parent could make enough
money to give their child a car, a horse, swim lessons, riding lessons,
trips and such...but the fact is, not all of us do. But if our ex's
decide they are, it's mandated on us. My husbands ex and my ex both
have houses..yet between the two of us, we can't get ahead enough to
have the same, we're in a small apartment...but we pay for theirs. In
all the years of paying support, neither of our ex's have put any of
that money away for college for the kids...but they could buy the kids
cars and horses (and the feed and lessons and supplies that go with
that) and other "important" things.
My only satisfaction, regarding the ex's, is that child support will run
out in a very few years (3 1/2) and then I want to see them maintain the
same life style...my joy will be in watching ours increase and theirs
decrease, drastically.
I'm not bitter, just angry that I'm paying for some stupid horse to eat
and live well and the kids have no college fund.
Terri-Lei
Beckish
>Kids do not cost as much as NCP are expected to pay..if they do then I
cannot afford the one I have......>>
This is definitely the truth! We have three kids living with us full time (my
two girls from my first marriage and the daughter we share together). We pay
support for two step-kids. When everything is figured out, we spend way more
per month on the step-kids than we do on the ones that live with us, that rely
on us for all of their needs! We would be much better off financially and as a
family if the step-kids lived with us full-time.
By the way, I am also the listowner for a list for second wives. If anyone is
interested in subscribing, please email me privately for details.
Take care,
Becky
S&V Moroz
Beckish wrote:
>
> This is definitely the truth! We have three kids living with us full time (my
> two girls from my first marriage and the daughter we share together). We pay
> support for two step-kids. When everything is figured out, we spend way more
> per month on the step-kids than we do on the ones that live with us, that rely
> on us for all of their needs! We would be much better off financially and as a
> family if the step-kids lived with us full-time.
>
> By the way, I am also the listowner for a list for second wives. If anyone is
> interested in subscribing, please email me privately for details.
>
> Take care,
> Becky
Hats off again to Becky!!! And this coming from a divorced bio-mom!!!
My family would definitely be more comfortable if we had the
kids...without support from the bio-mom!! Because we would be in charge
of that money...it would buy our groceries and everyone would have all
that they need. Extra expenses such as vaccations would have to be
earned in the form of overtime..which now goes to keeping the house
running and vacations are non-existent!!
Shawna
jane lawrence
I see this question from both perspectives. I receive $400/mo
child support for my daughter. My husband pays child support to
his exwife.
Kids are expensive. It's not your ex's fault. Consider it the
price we pay for getting out of a bad marriage and (hopefully)
being happier in a new one.
S&V Moroz
Well, I must say I opened a can of worms....when all I had really
intended was to fnd out what others were paying!!
I think everyone sees the issue from their particular situation.
I can't remember who said it..but if a NCP is forced into being an NCP
then they shouldn't be forced to pay is a good one.
I think that both parents should have equal access to their kids
whenever possible/logical..as it is best for the kids. However, I find
too many women deny Dad seeing their kids JUST to hurt him and get more
money.
Child support payments have gotten way out of hand....at least in my
area. I know one Dad who's ex began denying him access because he told
her "no" and then moved. He had no idea where she was and did not see
his kid for 2 years. He ran into her by accident and followed her home
one day and stated he wanted to see the kid. She relented slightly, but
kept breaking the dates......forcing him back to court. On the first
court appearance he was told that the matter of visitation would be
looked int, but in the meantime he could begin paying $500 dollars/month
(from $400 for one kid). His ex started getting PI's involved and
psychologists and was talking abuse etc......by the time things ended he
had gone bankrupt, pays $800/month and gave up the fight....and he still
does not get to see his kid!!!
Most Dads would not mind supporting their child finacially if the
payments were reasonable and their ex's were resonable about access and
so forth.
I think that is what we are seeing here...in my case the support is not
too unreasonable, but the mother is.
Shawna
Steplink
I see lots of talk about child support...you should make your opinions heard to
your local reps who decide these issues.
If you need help finding out who your state senator and assemblyperson are
try this site for links that will help you find out
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7813
If you'd like to join an e-mail loop for women who write to the legisture
contact
sw4...@aol.com
regards to all
steplink