- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Blended Families
diana_3481
member
Child support issue and SAHM's - my opinion..
diana_3481
member
ok..I might not be the favorite after I type this...BUT..child support should not be going toward a mom to be able to stay home IF she is perfectly able to work.
Definitions:
Child Support: A payment that a noncustodial parent makes as a contribution to the costs of raising her or his child.
Alimony: 1. Law An allowance for support made under court order to a divorced person by the former spouse, usually the chief provider during the marriage. Alimony may also be granted without a divorce, as between legally separated persons.2. A means of livelihood; maintenance.
If the Mom re-marries and her new husband has the means to support the house and she can be a SAHM...more power to them. Thats fantastic. I think if the Mother is single and able to work. She should. The Child Support goes to the child...not so the mom can live off the money that is to go to the Child. If she wants to stay at home as she did when she was married...set up an Alimony agreement. That is what that is for.
I see too many fathers get screwed because of ex-wives that take them for all they have...therefore that father cant even make a home for himself. I am not saying ALL SAHM are like this..nor do I mean any disrespect to SAHM. But child support is for support of the child....not support of the ex-wife.
*curls into fetal position waiting for backlash*
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Child support issue and SAHM's - my opinion..
I totally agree with you.
*zips up flame retardant suit*
Ok, normally I would be all to happy to engage in this debate, but we just went round and round about this not to long ago. What even prompted you to bring it up? Are you seeking attention? Especially since you obviously know this is a hot button topic.
All you are doing is creating more sh*t between SM's and BM's and SAHM's and WM's.
::sigh and walks away::
"But child support is for support of the child....not support of the ex-wife."
THANK YOU!!!! I realize that is not a problem for every situation. But it is in mine. BM chooses to not work, mostly because she can't keep a job because she always lies about her qualifications and her lack of actual skills. Luckily, our CS payment is low, but that is because we have SD 50% of the time. It just makes me mad that BM wants to take us back to court for more money because she has another man's baby on the way and doesn't want to work, and she wants to limit visitation as well. She's just mean though, and not all BM's are like she is. We don't mind paying CS for SD, we do mind paying that for BM to spend it on herself and then ask us to pay for everything else SD needs when she is at her BM's.
I can see your point when there is a single mom and whatnot, I was a single mom for 3 years and I worked nights. When I got re-married I am able to SAH. We can't afford for me to go to work, do you have any idea how much daycare costs? The spermdonor pays a minimal amout. I think it all depends on the situation. If when I was a single mom for 3 years, my parents weren't around to take care of DS while I went to work, I don't know what I would have done.
I 100% agree with you. Right now my DH and I are paying $2951 PER MONTH plus insurance for my SD. The mother sits at home and does nothing all day - which she is perfectly capable of working. She chooses not too. And seriously - why would she? $2951 is more that I make a month!
I think that the system screwed my DH when taking into account my income ("supplemental") although before me - he was still in charge of paying $2000. Until SD is 23!
BM does nothing but watch soap operas all day... How do I know this? Because she likes to say crap when SD calls us, etc.
It definatley depends on the situation..and yes, I do know what daycare costs. I have a 9 y/o daughter of my own. Her father and I have been divorced since she was about two. THe bulk of what I get for child support goes to pay for that daycare. I didnt bring up this topic again for the sole purpose of getting everyone all heated again. I was reading past posts..and no one seemed to have mentioned the Alimony angle.
OMG!! This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen! It makes me think there should be a cap on child support!!
Sure - but when MY income is factored in... I believe there is a problem. And yes, he mades decent money - but why in the world would someone be given so much money in CS when she is perfectly capable of providing for her daughter also.
The formula asks for his income, supplemental, AND hers... When you put a big fat ZERO in hers... my DH's increases dramatically.
J+R I think that amount is crazy, C/S should be based soley on the fathers income, it shouldn't include yours. It isn't your "responsibility" to support her DD while she doens't have too.
I don't know how I feel about a cap. If the father (or mom) made alot while they were together, the primary should get the percentage of the high amount. I'm not sure how I feel sbout raises in te future though, besides a cost of living. I view it as the ex wasn't morally or financially supporting the one who bettered themselves. Maybe went to school, or worked extra hours.
I think that is hard to follow. It was hard to describe in type.
I think it totally crazy that your income was calculated in the child support amount. I don't know what state you are in but in California no parent is imputed just zero even if they have never worked.
The child support system is not as fair as it could be. I don't necessarily think that there should be a cap because then you might have a child living in proverty while the other parent is living in the lap of luxury but both parents should be financial supporting their child.
Massachusetts is her state. The CO was drawn up there so we have to go through them... It isn't our state though. I wish it were - it definitely seems more fair.
::eye roll::
Click me, click me!
In MI the step parent's income isn't a factor. I can see both sides of it though. Once you become a "family" your income is usually seen as combined. Do you file taxes as a married couple? I do think their needs to be a better balance but 1/3 of income going to a child(ren) seems reasonable to me.
Wow, now that one seems TERRIBLY unfair in a lot of situations. What if the Non custodial parent only makes 25,000 per year? Or something along those lines. So the support is calculated with the father only making 5,000 per year??
Or, say both parents are low income and both make less than $20,000 per year. Does that mean that the non custodial parent has NO financial responsibility to his/her child?
So I'm a SAHM. I put my career on hold to support my hypothetical husband's very lucrative rock star career. He earms millions, but only because I SAH and take care of the kids, house, and manage the family finances. He works out of the home, but is supported by all my work at home.
So we're married 10 years and whamm! He decideds he's gonna find himself. We get divorced. Since I've not been working, am I not entitled to money that I otherwise would have put into a 401k or pension? Don't I deserve to be compensated for the unpaid work I did so he could be successful?
Alimony in MA is only after 10 years of marriage. If I get a divorce, I think I deserve some compensation for enabling a successful career.
Also my (hypotheical, I don't really have) rock star husband SHOULD pay CS based on his millions of income. Or should his children have a different standard of living? That's why a c/s cap is a bad idea. The rock stars. Won't some one think of the rock stars?
I think that is totally ridiculous. It is not that cut and dry. Seriously, what if the custodial parent is choosing not to work to their fullest potential, so that they can get as much in CS as possible? So, that is fair. Is it fair if they are using the CS money to live an extravegent lifestyle, while the one paying it is barely making ends meet, and living as simply as possible?
Does one child really require $2500 a month? What if the one paying the CS is also the one who pays medical insurance, and for clothes/shoes, activities, school supplies, etc? Shouldn't CS be covering those things (or at least most of it). There has to be a better way to figure out what would be fair for all involved. I am sorry but 1/3 of a persons income is huge, and for a lot of people would put them in a position where they could not afford a place to live, or food for their table.
As for the CS, maybe a cap is not the best way to put it. I do think that there should be limitations on the amount paid, as far as percentages and such. I also think that it should be much more involved to establish that CS, not just what is your income/what is their income.
Actually DRE-I said that alimony should be outlawed, that is where Brahim's comments come in.
But after sacrificing 10 years of my self, my career, and negatively affecting my earnings potential, what, I'm SOL?
A marriage is a legal contract. I'd sue anyone if they somehow impacted my potential to earn. In fact, in wrongful death and injury suits, survivors and families are awarded compensation based on the victim's "potential earnings" not necessarily what they earned the day they died. Now, of course, divorce and death are NOT the same, but the legal principle is similar.
My career is impacted by staying at home, which is a function of being married to my millionaire rock star. After 10 years, I can no longer be a beer spokesmodel as I have lost touch with the current trends in my profession, my network is outdated, I need to be recertified etc.
So alimony has it's place, imho.
Again, I did not say that you would not get anything. A settlement is different than alimony, and I can see a settlement being applied in the super rare case of the superstar or the super successful CEO who makes millions. But for the average divorce situation no, I don't think that anyone should take away anything more than what they brought to the table. Maybe all marriages should have a pre nup to avoid this kind of stuff?
I just don't think that alimony really has any place in 99.999% of situations.
I don't agree with what you said in the way that you said it. I don't believe that a non custodial parents should pay MORE because the custodial parents is able not to work, but I do believe they should still pay some child support. If the custodial parent can afford not to work, that doesn't negate the financial responsibility of the other parent. I know here in WA, the child support guidelines say that if one parent is able to work but chooses not to, that the amount they would have earned will be used to determine what their percentage of child support is. Then that percentage would be deducted from the overall amount and what is left is owed by the non custodial parent.
So a SAHM has to suck it up and deal with the fact that despite agree to sacrifice her own financial interests based on a contract she made w/ her spouse and in the knowledge that assessts at retirement would be 50/50 she should suffer?
I give up my career, and my yearly increases, merit/experience increases and then after a one time settlement I'm sol?
Most couples don't have large assessts to divide, I'd wager. Therefore, I think a SAHM who sacrificed her future earnings to better the working spouse (and this goes for a SAHD to working wife as well) is owed a portion of the future income. She invested in the groundwork for the future earnings, which, as a worker gains more experience, increase.
I would never devalue a SAHM like...
but this situation isn't the case for every couple either. my dh's ex was laid off when their girls were 2 or 3 (they divorced when they were five.) they decided that they could afford for her not to go back to work. she didn't do anything to lay the ground work for his future earnings. should he be responsible for alimony?
allowing someone to work unfettered by child care responsibility even for two or three years is furthering a career. Workers who are able to travel, stay late/come early and don't have to leave at 5 to hit daycare advance faster and earn more. I do think alimony should have time limits. Like, only after 10 years of marriage is one eligible. And lifetime alimony only after 20. But to say all alimony is a sham I think is missing a big part of what a SAHM does.
Brahim...the wife made that sacrifice and that commitment when they were married. After the divorce..much like the marriage agreement....everything is null and void. Yes, he should pay child support to support his child. He should not have to support the mother any longer...their agreement was for when they were together and it was what worked for them as a married couple. They are no longer married....SHE is not his "responsibility" any longer. The child still is.
And by responsibility I am in no way undermining her choice to stay home or saying it is was a burden or that what she did at home was not contributing to the family ..but in a sense...the choice was made that it would be his responsibilty to be the money maker for the family ..therefore, the well being of his family was his "responsibility".
I have no idea what to say to at least half of you, especially those of you I like.
I guess paying child support makes one bitter as fuuk. Perhaps it would have been a better idea to not have the damn kids in the first place considering this is the system under which all these people had children and got divorced.
Click me, click me!