Child support issue and SAHM's - my opinion..

diana_3481 · April 2009

I see no one complaining about paying child support for the child. And actually I see no complaining at all really....a lively debate, maybe.

People get bitter when they cant make a house of their own when their husbands are paying up the wazoo in child support because the ex-wife wants to SAH....and she is perfectly capable of working. That should have been an alimony agreement...not a child support order. I am not saying this with no experience here. I am divorced. Not re-married. I work full time. I was a SAHM when married. I dont feel it is his responsibility to continue to support me while I stay at home. I am perfectly capable of working and supporting myself and both of us (my ex and myself) are contributing to the financial responsibilites of our child.

No one here has denied that the father should pay child support.

Erin Mary Ackerman · April 2009

diana_3481:

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".

um, really? 1952 just called and it wants it's attitude back. A SAHM contribuest to the fiscal well being of a family by providing childcare and other services that would otherwise have to be paid for. A marriage is a legal contract, and you can't just say "null and void" based on emtoions, etc. There are legal ways to end contracts and those include buying your way out, which in a sense is what alimony is.

"null and void" doesn't apply to a legally binding contract between to adults. If the deal is forever and that goes belly up, then something has to be done financially to make the party who sacrificed "whole" in the legal sense. That, my friends, is alimony.

I actually have no dog in this alimony fight, btw, either paying or receiving. But the vitriol about cs and alimony surprises me.

diana_3481 · April 2009

and once again....I am not saying anything is wrong with Alimony..if you want to go that route. My one and only point in this...was child support goes to the child...alimony goes to the ex. A mother should not be a SAHM based on the Child Support payments. She can be a SAHM based on the Alimony...if that is what the agreement is at the time of divorce. But if the father was not ordered to pay alimony..and the ex is perfectly capable of working..she should be working. Not using the child support to pay for her to SAH. She should be contributing to the roof over that childs head and food for that child to eat just as much as he is. The SAHM arrangement was made when they were married.

PurposelyVague · April 2009

BrahimBride:
diana_3481:

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".

um, really? 1952 just called and it wants it's attitude back. A SAHM contribuest to the fiscal well being of a family by providing childcare and other services that would otherwise have to be paid for. A marriage is a legal contract, and you can't just say "null and void" based on emtoions, etc. There are legal ways to end contracts and those include buying your way out, which in a sense is what alimony is.

"null and void" doesn't apply to a legally binding contract between to adults. If the deal is forever and that goes belly up, then something has to be done financially to make the party who sacrificed "whole" in the legal sense. That, my friends, is alimony.

I actually have no dog in this alimony fight, btw, either paying or receiving. But the vitriol about cs and alimony surprises me.

i think it would be more correct to say that SOME sahms contribute to the fiscal well being of a family by providing childcare and other services that would otherwise have to be paid for. because to say that all do is a gross generalization. and there isn't a sacrifice of whole in every case either. some woman want to stay at home and don't care to further their own career. so at the time, it's mutually beneficial to the husband and wife. and i do agree that the responsibility ends when the marriage ends, just like all of the other marrital privlilages that end with the marriage.

knmommy · April 2009

Hind your're awesome!!!!

xmaryrickx · April 2009

BrahimBride:
diana_3481:

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".

um, really? 1952 just called and it wants it's attitude back. A SAHM contribuest to the fiscal well being of a family by providing childcare and other services that would otherwise have to be paid for. A marriage is a legal contract, and you can't just say "null and void" based on emtoions, etc. There are legal ways to end contracts and those include buying your way out, which in a sense is what alimony is.

"null and void" doesn't apply to a legally binding contract between to adults. If the deal is forever and that goes belly up, then something has to be done financially to make the party who sacrificed "whole" in the legal sense. That, my friends, is alimony.

I actually have no dog in this alimony fight, btw, either paying or receiving. But the vitriol about cs and alimony surprises me.

Actually, it is a bit more progressive to say that a woman should never expect someone else to support her, no matter the situation, than to say that because she choose (along with her than H) to be SAHM, to better the family, that she should be supported by him after divorce. To me, expecting someone to continue to support you, no matter the situation, is sort of going in the opposite direction-so I think 1952 is calling you.

As for the last part, you might feel differently is you did have a dog in this fight.

Serendipity07 · April 2009

Even though our BM chooses not to work (and lies about all sorts of made up medical probs) I have no prob with "paying CS" - I wouldn't be with DH if he tried to get out of his financial responsibility to his 2 sons -but most of you know our situation and how screwed up it is, paying almost $2,500/month and the state they live in even SAID DH is paying DOUBLE what he should be, according to what he makes (he's military - not a CEO) and the state guidelines there.

So, I'm all for CS, but not when someone nails the n/c parent incorrectly/excessively and we suffer because they're getting above and beyond what is really necessary.(our original calculation in the previous state had several errors and we've tried for almost 2 yrs to fix it) At this point, we ARE supporting BM too (she already proved in court she spends nowhere NEAR what she gets in CS on the boys - the judge was VERY unhappy that she can't change the order until Nov 2010 and she even told BM that and told BM she's a liar and a snake.)

hindsight's_a_biotch · April 2009

Thank you, kn.

But really, rants like these and the posts that follow is the primary reason some people think it's BM vs SM around here and accuse us of being resentful.

I know there are people getting screwed over by the system here. But there are plenty of BM's getting the damn shaft, too. And complaining about child support and alimony just seems like a gross generalization of the situation. And my sympathy, quite honestly, only goes so far. These child support obligations didn't magically appear after you married. They were paying it all along. It seems disingenuous to complain so bitterly about an obligation you've known about from the get go.

And for the record, unless someone does some research, I'm going to continue to believe that there are just as many BM's who are being stiffed or have under calculated child support because the BF is douchey, refuses to work, lives with daddy or gets paid under the table as their are BM's who live off the child support. In fact, I'm almost positive there are more overworked, underpaid mothers who are taking it up the ass from an absentee, fly by night, the courts can't find birth father.

But maybe that's because I've never received a dime of child support from pete's father, despite the TX attorney general filing a case against him. Or because my own father, despite going onto a long ass career in computer networking that was easily yielding 70k a year, my mother only got $150/mo for two children.

Maybe someone should do a study and settle this once and for all.

FWIW, this debate is old and brings out the worst in about half of you. I'd suggest we not bring it up again.

Phantomgirl · April 2009

I agree with hind that we should let this drop. It really is beating a dead horse at this stage. In fact I propose that if it comes up again we say 'no thanks' and don't reply.

FWIW - My SO is paying quite substantially and due to financial difficulties we have had to cut everything back to the bone except this.

BUT my mother got shafted on CS and alimony. My father walked out after 25 years of marriage. He recently purchased a second property to work on as a 'project' for him and SM. All the while my mother lives in a crappy estate where the police drive through regularly just to keep the peace. She was in her early 40's, no qualifications and currently cleans a priests home for minimum wage and just about gets by.

Serendipity07 · April 2009

Very true - this is a very old topic here...witht he same results every time pretty much. FWIW, 3 gals I work with are getting totally screwed on CS - they get little to none and the BF's just keep changing jobs and giving them the shaft. I feel for them and feel for us - we said we wish we could swap BM's and BF's in our cases - haha!

LovetheMidwest · April 2009

I was going to ignore this because I am usually one to defend the amount of CS paid to BM. In our situation BM makes more than my H, but we can't have her 50/50 due to his work schedule, yes his choice to be a cop, however we do pay the CS, after all she does have placement most of the time.This doesn't mean I agree with it. Its just the way it is,so why complain about it. However she recently stated that all the CS she is getting is going into a college fund.. GREAT IDEA! SD can use that down the road, but yes she does make more than DH so sometimes its a bit hard to swallow, but it could be worse. ( not complaining about CS still) I take it for what it is $$ to help the child.. I am happy SD will have a fund for college when it becomes that time.

Then I just got an email from a friend... Her ex that beat the sh*t out of her and their son, who is now special needs, due to this he owes her 30,000 in back support. She will never see any of that money, doesn't care, wish her son was a normal healthy 8yo, instead he has the mentality of a toddler. Thankfully this man is out of the picture and just got out of jail, but still no contact.

I agree with Mary alimony is basically a sham in most situations. CS is always a huge debate and there are always 2 sides to every story.

xmaryrickx · April 2009

Hind, I totally agree with you that there are just as many if not more BM's who get the shaft when it comes to CS because of douchey BF's as there are BF's getting thse shaft and having to pay exhorbinant amounts of CS because of douchey BM's.

soontobecapek · April 2009

sdc81 · April 2009

I disagree with making such a generalized statement like this. And I say this as *sweetly* as possible... But why is there an idea out there that SAHM's work isn't as hard as any other?

I am a SAHM now; if my husband decides to leave me, of course I would probably *have* to go back to work because in the field I worked & was trained in, I'd never be able to support me & kids even with joint custody off of a small portion of his income. But he'd be hard pressed to think that if he walks out, that I am doing much more than needs to be done in terms of hours per week... I am luicky that in my siutation, this means between his support and mw working part time I could swing 20-25 hours a week. And this is not because I am lazy-- because I am perfectly able to work-- but it's based on the decision he & I made *while married and having kids together* that the kids are best off in our family with me as a SAHM... and I don't thin a divorce should up & change that decision... the kids should not have to suffer those consequences entirely.

And of course, with good moms, child support goes to the child- that is, in any way that helps support the child. It should not go toward the mom's fake nails or haircuts or her shopping sprees... but if it's for car repairs, when she has to tote the kid around, or the like (rent, groceries) then that is considered support that is benefitting the child.

Also, I like your bit about alimony... it got me thinking, how many states still have it? NYS does not have alimony... if you're wealthy enough you might be lucky to get some sort of settlement, but it's not legally called alimony anymore.

Big Smile

xmaryrickx · April 2009

sdc81:

I disagree with making such a generalized statement like this. And I say this as *sweetly* as possible... But why is there an idea out there that SAHM's work isn't as hard as any other?

I am a SAHM now; if my husband decides to leave me, of course I would probably *have* to go back to work because in the field I worked & was trained in, I'd never be able to support me & kids even with joint custody off of a small portion of his income. But he'd be hard pressed to think that if he walks out, that I am doing much more than needs to be done in terms of hours per week... I am luicky that in my siutation, this means between his support and mw working part time I could swing 20-25 hours a week. And this is not because I am lazy-- because I am perfectly able to work-- but it's based on the decision he & I made *while married and having kids together* that the kids are best off in our family with me as a SAHM... and I don't thin a divorce should up & change that decision... the kids should not have to suffer those consequences entirely.

And of course, with good moms, child support goes to the child- that is, in any way that helps support the child. It should not go toward the mom's fake nails or haircuts or her shopping sprees... but if it's for car repairs, when she has to tote the kid around, or the like (rent, groceries) then that is considered support that is benefitting the child.

Also, I like your bit about alimony... it got me thinking, how many states still have it? NYS does not have alimony... if you're wealthy enough you might be lucky to get some sort of settlement, but it's not legally called alimony anymore.

Are you f-ing kidding me???? NO one here said anything to the effect of SAHM's not having a hard job. Of course they do. Any parent has a hard job, it is super challenging to raise children.

Do you have SK's? Is your H a SF to your children?

Things change after a divorce. I am not going to get into a SAHM vs Working out of the home mom (you wanna start that one go to the politics board, or the 9-5 board), but I do think that in the event of a divorce that all involved need to do as much as they are physically capable of doing to make sure that the children are provided for-equally by both parites.

I have no idea how many states have alimony. I know mine does, as we are facing paying it, under certain circumstances, to the tune of $1200 a month, on top of child support. This is 4 years after the divorce, and 7 since seperation. Nope, not okay with that. There is one child who is 14, she can work more than 15 hours per week, and she can certainly make more than $8 an hour. So, sorry if I find this a rather heated subject, but until you are faced with the really shitty situation, I don't think you can even begin to understand the ramifications it can have.

MrsBPO · April 2009

Actually, most states do still have alimony on the books (including NY, btw, to the PP.) https://www.helpyourselfdivorce.com/new-york-alimony-laws.html for NY and a pdf from the ABA (American Bar Association) for all states here https://www.abanet.org/family/familylaw/FLQalimony06.pdf.

I have no problem paying alimony to a SAHM, if the situation calls for it, such as the PP's mother, with the 25 year marriage. Alimony doesn't typically get paid *unless* the situation warrants it. Disparate education, disparate income, length of marriage, etc. Two years doesn't necessarily warrant alimony; twenty could.

SAHM isn't a "mom" decision, it is a JOINT decision. The wife doesn't just say "Husband, I've decided to stay home with the kids." and not give the husband any input into the decision, at least not in most households. Generally, alimony is paid only for a certain period of time, long enough to enable the SAHM to get on her feet and get trained/educated for a job; it's not a lifetime commitment. It really does depend on how long she's been a SAH, her education level, husband's education and career, etc. Or at least, it *should* depend on those factors. And yes, alimony is considered separate from child support. Alimony is *taxable income* and child support is non-taxable support for expenses in raising a child.

If the initial plan BETWEEN BOTH PARENTS was for the mom to SAH and return to work when the child was in school, why should that plan change? BOTH parents wanted one parent home when the child was small. She *is* supporting the family, even if it's not monetarily. It was good enough for the children's father when they were married, why should it not be in the children's best interests just because they decided to not stay married.

But, every situation is different. If a mom takes the child support and *chooses* to SAH and can make it work without harming the children, that is upon her. Child support should not be going to enable the mother to SAH, which is why there are calculation tables. If the father does make enough to pay child support in an amount that permits the mom to SAH while the kids are young without it being absolutely detrimental to his household, so be it, but if she SAHs and doesn't work based on child support calculations, the kids are in school and she's not working at least while they're in school to bring in additional income, she's probably not serving the best *financial* interests of her kids.

(and many states will "impute" income to a non-working parent or a parent working below his/her standard income level, which is to base a supposed or imaginary income, what a person *should* be making rather than is *actually* making. And if a step-mother's income is calculated then a step-father's should be as well.)

nolabride0605 · April 2009

I think this is crappy - My DH is military, so he doesn't make a lot of money. I work FT as a teacher (again not much money), but my income isn't included. We have 1 child together and 1 on the way. DH has a 12yo dd who lives out of state.

He doesn't pay all that much $500 and honestly we don't miss it too much.

My problem is that the money doesn't just go to my SD, but also to the unemployed bf that lives in their trailer. My DH's money supports her BF... they have to get food stamps, too, and according to my SD, they never have enough money for food. (but they have money for cigarettes and cigars)

Oh and BTW - it's against the court order that any unrelated male guest spend the night in the house while SD is there....

sdc81 · April 2009

xmaryrickx:
sdc81:

I disagree with making such a generalized statement like this. And I say this as *sweetly* as possible... But why is there an idea out there that SAHM's work isn't as hard as any other?

I am a SAHM now; if my husband decides to leave me, of course I would probably *have* to go back to work because in the field I worked & was trained in, I'd never be able to support me & kids even with joint custody off of a small portion of his income. But he'd be hard pressed to think that if he walks out, that I am doing much more than needs to be done in terms of hours per week... I am luicky that in my siutation, this means between his support and mw working part time I could swing 20-25 hours a week. And this is not because I am lazy-- because I am perfectly able to work-- but it's based on the decision he & I made *while married and having kids together* that the kids are best off in our family with me as a SAHM... and I don't thin a divorce should up & change that decision... the kids should not have to suffer those consequences entirely.

And of course, with good moms, child support goes to the child- that is, in any way that helps support the child. It should not go toward the mom's fake nails or haircuts or her shopping sprees... but if it's for car repairs, when she has to tote the kid around, or the like (rent, groceries) then that is considered support that is benefitting the child.

Also, I like your bit about alimony... it got me thinking, how many states still have it? NYS does not have alimony... if you're wealthy enough you might be lucky to get some sort of settlement, but it's not legally called alimony anymore.

Are you f-ing kidding me???? NO one here said anything to the effect of SAHM's not having a hard job. Of course they do. Any parent has a hard job, it is super challenging to raise children.

Do you have SK's? Is your H a SF to your children?

Things change after a divorce. I am not going to get into a SAHM vs Working out of the home mom (you wanna start that one go to the politics board, or the 9-5 board), but I do think that in the event of a divorce that all involved need to do as much as they are physically capable of doing to make sure that the children are provided for-equally by both parites.

I have no idea how many states have alimony. I know mine does, as we are facing paying it, under certain circumstances, to the tune of $1200 a month, on top of child support. This is 4 years after the divorce, and 7 since seperation. Nope, not okay with that. There is one child who is 14, she can work more than 15 hours per week, and she can certainly make more than $8 an hour. So, sorry if I find this a rather heated subject, but until you are faced with the really shitty situation, I don't think you can even begin to understand the ramifications it can have.

Is this a bad joke? Mary, you know me, we've talked, I've been here for years... you know I am a SM... and one who's provided better and has been more involved in her SK's life since day one of me being with my H, than BM. I have picked up all the pieces/made the difference/supported/listened/provided countless times-all thankless (which we should all be used to by now to a degree, right?)- for the simple sake that it's my responsibility to my SS.

Please don't assume that because my opinion is different than yours, that I don't 'get' the pain of certain parts of being a SP, and having a legally-binded ex to deal with: being broke while the BM acts frivolous, having to make certain concessions or explanations or excuses that she doesn't, etc... I've been on this board enough venting about the antics of the BM me & DH deal with, too. I get having a bad day; but just don't take another's opinion and blatantly assume it's diminsihing your situation, 'cause I think you're overracting to what I said and assuming I was applying it to how you should feel... I was only saying how *I* feel.

I get what you're saying, and I respect it. And what I am saying, is that if I, for example, were able to work PT while getting CS- *IF* it meant I could still provide well for my kids- I certainly would do that... because being a mom- we will all agree- is just as hard as any other kind of work. Staying at home, even if only PT, is still "providing" to one's physical capabilities, even if it does not result in its own paycheck (God, I reallllly wish it did sometimes!). I am sorry you were so offended by another point of view... I've done the working full time thing while being a mom; I know both sides; I know the downfalls & benefits to what it meant for my life; and know that both equally "provide" for kids.

Hope you're doing better today.

Want a personalized experience?

Child support issue and SAHM's - my opinion..

Re: Child support issue and SAHM's - my opinion..

Choose Another Board

Search Boards