It's another CS question

J&A2008

Sorry, McLovin,

I call MAJOR B.S. to that comment right there.  It is not a luxury to stay home with 3 kids.  It's a lot of work, but very important to some parents.

Child care is expensive, too, don't forget that.  It might not be that much different to have the mom working or staying home.  If that's the arrangement pre-divorce, it certainly should remain the same post-divorce.

Phantomgirl

Libby283:

gin9874:

Libby283:

I agree except to say that the NCP should pay 1/2 (or whatever the percentage of salary works out to be) of the housing of the kids.

 

I'm sorry but I do not believe that HOUSING should be included in CS. In our case, BM has the same size house as we do (not that this even matters IMO). My SS share a room in her house, just as they do in ours, SD used to share a room with her stepsister until BM's DH signed over rights to her (...side-eye for that one...). In our house, my SS's share a room and SD shares a room with DD.

Same goes for DD's BF house. His house is the same size as ours, but they still have their daughter share a room with DD so the girls can have a playroom. Why should they have to pay me more in CS to house her at my house when he also houses her.

If all the kids are housed properly at both houses, why would their need to be HOUSING support? Our house doesn't magically shrink or go down in monthly payments when the kids aren't here and neither does.

With the theory of payments by the # of people in the house on say a $1000 house: You would have us paying BM $600 just for housing so she would only have to pay $400/mth. Yet my ex would be paying $142.86 so we would then be paying $600 for BM's house and $857.14 for ours....now how is that fair????

I'm sorry but parents should supply their kids with a roof over their head in their one house only IMO. Plus, housing costs vary dramatically, just because a house is in CP's budget doesn't mean it's in the NCP's budget. What if BM moved into a house that is $3000/mth, would we then have to pay $1800 a month just to housing fo her?

So you don't think a NCP should help provide a roof over the child's head? Just curious, would you still say that if child stays with BM 100% of the time, and child does not even need a room or housing at NCP house?

 

absolutely not.  I stated in an earlier post that because my DH does not have 50/50 he absolutely should pay CS towards utilities, food, cloths and entertainment for SS at BM - and he does.

He already puts a roof over his head at our house.  If things were so bad that BM could not afford to put a roof over SS head we would file for full custody.

Phantomgirl

J&A2008:

Sorry, McLovin,

I call MAJOR B.S. to that comment right there.  It is not a luxury to stay home with 3 kids.  It's a lot of work, but very important to some parents.

Child care is expensive, too, don't forget that.  It might not be that much different to have the mom working or staying home.  If that's the arrangement pre-divorce, it certainly should remain the same post-divorce.

I see where McLovin is coming from as it is a 'luxury' we will never be able to afford.  So by luxury I assume she means something you can afford as opposed to implying that SAHM sit on their azz being pampered.

However, J&A is right.  My mom stayed home with us all her life.  She is unskilled/untrained.  She also let my dad walk all over her in the divorce and thus had to get a job post divorce to survive.  She cleans houses now for a living - it's what she knows.

Had she been working all through her 20 years of marriage and being a mother she would have way more options today.

Ilumine

J&A2008:

Sorry, McLovin,

I call MAJOR B.S. to that comment right there.  It is not a luxury to stay home with 3 kids.  It's a lot of work, but very important to some parents.

Child care is expensive, too, don't forget that.  It might not be that much different to have the mom working or staying home.  If that's the arrangement pre-divorce, it certainly should remain the same post-divorce.

And I call this MAJOR BS.  The arrangements you are talking about were made with the understanding that BOTH *** PARENTS WOULD BE TOGETHER. 

As soon as the two parties divorce, the "contract" becomes null and void, since the both parties have changed all of the OTHER verbal (and some would say legal) points to the marital contract.  They PROMISED to stay together until they died....that didn't *** happen either. 

So to say that THIS ONE part of the marital contract must be honored, but the rest don't is basically selfishness.

riabiron

staying home is a luxury that many people cannot afford. that isn't to say its not a hard job then working outside the home but it is still a LUXURY to be able to be with your kids, at home and not out earning a paycheck. I would give almost anything to be able to do it, but I can't because we can't afford it. if i got a divorce I still couldn't afford it. If I was able to stay home and then got divoriced i wouldnt be able to afford it. both parents need to contribute financially, this generally means both need to have jobs.

Ginlyn0

Phantomgirl:

Libby283:

gin9874:

Libby283:

I agree except to say that the NCP should pay 1/2 (or whatever the percentage of salary works out to be) of the housing of the kids.

 

I'm sorry but I do not believe that HOUSING should be included in CS. In our case, BM has the same size house as we do (not that this even matters IMO). My SS share a room in her house, just as they do in ours, SD used to share a room with her stepsister until BM's DH signed over rights to her (...side-eye for that one...). In our house, my SS's share a room and SD shares a room with DD.

Same goes for DD's BF house. His house is the same size as ours, but they still have their daughter share a room with DD so the girls can have a playroom. Why should they have to pay me more in CS to house her at my house when he also houses her.

If all the kids are housed properly at both houses, why would their need to be HOUSING support? Our house doesn't magically shrink or go down in monthly payments when the kids aren't here and neither does.

With the theory of payments by the # of people in the house on say a $1000 house: You would have us paying BM $600 just for housing so she would only have to pay $400/mth. Yet my ex would be paying $142.86 so we would then be paying $600 for BM's house and $857.14 for ours....now how is that fair????

I'm sorry but parents should supply their kids with a roof over their head in their one house only IMO. Plus, housing costs vary dramatically, just because a house is in CP's budget doesn't mean it's in the NCP's budget. What if BM moved into a house that is $3000/mth, would we then have to pay $1800 a month just to housing fo her?

So you don't think a NCP should help provide a roof over the child's head? Just curious, would you still say that if child stays with BM 100% of the time, and child does not even need a room or housing at NCP house?

 

absolutely not.  I stated in an earlier post that because my DH does not have 50/50 he absolutely should pay CS towards utilities, food, cloths and entertainment for SS at BM - and he does.

He already puts a roof over his head at our house.  If things were so bad that BM could not afford to put a roof over SS head we would file for full custody.

This!