It's another CS question

Phantomgirl · September 2010

A lot of CP make the commet that CS does not even cover half of what SC needs at their house. Should it?

DH puts a roof over SSs head at our house? Provides a room, cloths and food and everything SS needs at our house. Isn't that the least BM should be able to provide at her house?

We don't have 50/50 so I personaally have no issue paying child support.

BUT isn't my DH effectively responsible for providing for his son at two houses, fully at our house and half at BMs?

NikkiJ19 · September 2010

Yeah somethings like the BM's home I don't feel CS should cover. I am sorry but she would need a place to live if she had the kids or not. As long as the CS covers 1/2 of child care, food (including school lunch), and an amount left over for clothes and fun things I am okay with that. Both of the BM's had a hard time understanding that DH takes care of his kids not the BM's.

Another thing that gets me is we pay the taxes on the CS but nobody acknowledges that. So really they are getting more then what the check says b/c that is tax free money for her but income for us.

My DH should pay child support but sometimes it seems like it is never enough. He doesn't need a thank you card but maybe a little less complaining would be great.

Ilumine · September 2010

I have always thought that the divorced parents should pay 1/2 of the costs of the CHILD/REN in the CP house. Ex, if the CP has 2 kids and lives in a 3 bedroom house that rents at $900 a month, then NCP should pay $300 towards the rent (1/3 of 900 is $300 x 2 kids = $600. 1/2 of $600 is $300). Same goes with utilities and food.

It is not the responsibility of the NCP to pay for the CP's room and board once they divorce, and the CP has EQUAL financial responsibility for her children as well.

Extravegant lifestyles (IPADS come to mind) are not somethign that the NCP should pay for, but not get credit for.

Ilumine · September 2010

And Nikki, that whole tax thing PISSES me off to no end. It is far from fair, especially when the NCP uses that money on things for themselves.

This is why I believe that if the NCP is paying more than 1/2 of the child's care (including health care, which is coming out of his/her pocket), then he/she gets to claim head of household.

NikkiJ19 · September 2010

Ilumine:

I have always thought that the divorced parents should pay 1/2 of the costs of the CHILD/REN in the CP house. Ex, if the CP has 2 kids and lives in a 3 bedroom house that rents at $900 a month, then NCP should pay $300 towards the rent (1/3 of 900 is $300 x 2 kids = $600. 1/2 of $600 is $300). Same goes with utilities and food.

It is not the responsibility of the NCP to pay for the CP's room and board once they divorce, and the CP has EQUAL financial responsibility for her children as well.

Extravegant lifestyles (IPADS come to mind) are not somethign that the NCP should pay for, but not get credit for.

I feel like the CP would need those rooms for the children even if they were the NCP so they shouldn't be included in CS. All the children have rooms in my home that we pay for.

NikkiJ19 · September 2010

I hate to reply and run but I have to. I just want to say thanks to phantom for getting us all talking. It was a bit quite around here for awhile.

One thing I think most of us have in common is we want the best for our BF and that is why we come to this board to get advise and other prospectives. I have learned a lot from the other SM's and BM's here. It is nice to see the other side of the fence. Thanks ladies!

Ilumine · September 2010

NikkiJ19:
Ilumine:

I have always thought that the divorced parents should pay 1/2 of the costs of the CHILD/REN in the CP house. Ex, if the CP has 2 kids and lives in a 3 bedroom house that rents at $900 a month, then NCP should pay $300 towards the rent (1/3 of 900 is $300 x 2 kids = $600. 1/2 of $600 is $300). Same goes with utilities and food.

It is not the responsibility of the NCP to pay for the CP's room and board once they divorce, and the CP has EQUAL financial responsibility for her children as well.

Extravegant lifestyles (IPADS come to mind) are not somethign that the NCP should pay for, but not get credit for.

I feel like the CP would need those rooms for the children even if they were the NCP so they shouldn't be included in CS. All the children have rooms in my home that we pay for.

I DO believe that unless there is a 50/50 split, the NCP should pay to house the kids. A NCP who only gets the kids every weekend doesn't have to have the same set up for the kids as a CP - the rooms are not utilized the same way on weekends as weekdays. They don't even need an individual room for each kid.

HOWEVER, I am also a firm believer that a Father (usually the NCP) should have a better chance at being the CP.

hterry85 · September 2010

Phantom, those have been my thoughts exactly...And I think a lot of CPs are forgetting, they are getting more TIME with their child than the NCP (not always, sometimes it's 50/50 and one still pays cs) I know there are plenty that fully appreciate that, but I also think there are some that don't realize that value.

Banana44 · September 2010

I personally think that there has to be a better way to handle CS. We have 50/50 custody and still pay over $500/month for 1 child.

BM works and makes a decent salary - but since DH makes more, he has to pay. And that part I am mostly fine with - what I don't agree with is a parent constantly asking for modifications based on bonus or raises. If my DH gets a bonus, raise, or a new job it is becasue of the support from his wife to work long hours, or take a job further from home, or what have you. Why should BM get a chuck of a bonus? I don't think that is right.

I just think there has to be a better way to handle support and there is a small part of me that thinks there shouldn't be any support for 50/50 custody - as long as Mom has a job. But only a small part.

mom2one · September 2010

hterry85:
Phantom, those have been my thoughts exactly...And I think a lot of CPs are forgetting, they are getting more TIME with their child than the NCP (not always, sometimes it's 50/50 and one still pays cs) I know there are plenty that fully appreciate that, but I also think there are some that don't realize that value.

Most moms I know would lower or stop child support if it meant they would have more time with their kids. And it's one of the main reasons my ex doesn't pay support.

libby283 · September 2010

NikkiJ19:

Yeah somethings like the BM's home I don't feel CS should cover. I am sorry but she would need a place to live if she had the kids or not. As long as the CS covers 1/2 of child care, food (including school lunch), and an amount left over for clothes and fun things I am okay with that. Both of the BM's had a hard time understanding that DH takes care of his kids not the BM's.

I disagree, if their were no children in the picture the BM could live in a smaller home, use less utilities and require less food. Once you add children to the mix, expenses go up. Thats why at least in this state that the court uses an elaborate calculation based on percentages of income, and over nights in which home.

Phantomgirl · September 2010

Ilumine:

I have always thought that the divorced parents should pay 1/2 of the costs of the CHILD/REN in the CP house. Ex, if the CP has 2 kids and lives in a 3 bedroom house that rents at $900 a month, then NCP should pay $300 towards the rent (1/3 of 900 is $300 x 2 kids = $600. 1/2 of $600 is $300). Same goes with utilities and food.

It is not the responsibility of the NCP to pay for the CP's room and board once they divorce, and the CP has EQUAL financial responsibility for her children as well.

Extravegant lifestyles (IPADS come to mind) are not somethign that the NCP should pay for, but not get credit for.

Ilumine when DH and I were renting we HAD to rent an appartment with a room for SS and a garden. It cost us an extra $300 per month no matter how much time SS stayed there.

When we moved into our new house we HAD to furnish a room for SS despite the fact that we only had him Wed night and EOW. We have to have cloths and shoes there despite the fact that he usually only wears them a handful of times before he grows out of them.

We also have bikes, fishing rods, toy, books no matter how often he uses them.

Also DH pays CS to supply half of these things at BMs. So basically SS has two sets of everything and DH pays 75% for them.

Now I absolutely agree that he should pay some CS as SS definitely uses more utilities and eats more food at BM. He also requires more cloths and entertaining at her house. All his 'needs' up and above lodgings should be covered by CS.

BUT the CP comment 'it doesn't even cover half of my costs' rubs me the wrong way.

sweetie0228 · September 2010

Banana44:

I personally think that there has to be a better way to handle CS. We have 50/50 custody and still pay over $500/month for 1 child.

BM works and makes a decent salary - but since DH makes more, he has to pay. And that part I am mostly fine with - what I don't agree with is a parent constantly asking for modifications based on bonus or raises. If my DH gets a bonus, raise, or a new job it is becasue of the support from his wife to work long hours, or take a job further from home, or what have you. Why should BM get a chuck of a bonus? I don't think that is right.

I just think there has to be a better way to handle support and there is a small part of me that thinks there shouldn't be any support for 50/50 custody - as long as Mom has a job. But only a small part.

Why shoud the CHILD be denied the chunk of the bonus? The CS is setup in such a way so that the CHILD'S lifestyle is least impacted by the decision by the adults to live separately.

The CS is based on the idea of what would the income be like if these two adults were together and then based on the total combined income the child's care expenses are taken out of that and then it's split between the parents.

For Example: if NCP makes $60K and CP makes $40K a year combined they make $100K then they figure based on the charts at this level of income parents would spend half of the total income on the care and mantinance of the Child. $50K total then it's broken out to say who pays what. NCP pays 60% and CP pays 40% based on the percentage of income brought into the house.So NCP would pay $30K a year or $2500 a month in support. The CP's portion is assumed paid by the fact the child lives w/ the parent.

I have honestly used this formula every time I have asked for a modifcation. I have always come within $5 of what the PA code has also figured.

Honestly, marry a person with out a child living somewhere else if you don't want to deal with it.

Is it a perfect system? No, not anywhere close.

Are there abuses on both sides? Oh you betcha! I take a HARD SIDE EYE to any parent who doesn't bust her hump to make sure her children are well provided for. But if it was part of the ORIGINAL PARENTING CONTRACT for the CP to stay at home with the children, that lifestyle should be maintained.

libby283 · September 2010

Ilumine:
NikkiJ19:
Ilumine:

I have always thought that the divorced parents should pay 1/2 of the costs of the CHILD/REN in the CP house. Ex, if the CP has 2 kids and lives in a 3 bedroom house that rents at $900 a month, then NCP should pay $300 towards the rent (1/3 of 900 is $300 x 2 kids = $600. 1/2 of $600 is $300). Same goes with utilities and food.

It is not the responsibility of the NCP to pay for the CP's room and board once they divorce, and the CP has EQUAL financial responsibility for her children as well.

Extravegant lifestyles (IPADS come to mind) are not somethign that the NCP should pay for, but not get credit for.

I feel like the CP would need those rooms for the children even if they were the NCP so they shouldn't be included in CS. All the children have rooms in my home that we pay for.

I DO believe that unless there is a 50/50 split, the NCP should pay to house the kids. A NCP who only gets the kids every weekend doesn't have to have the same set up for the kids as a CP - the rooms are not utilized the same way on weekends as weekdays. They don't even need an individual room for each kid.

HOWEVER, I am also a firm believer that a Father (usually the NCP) should have a better chance at being the CP.

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.

hterry85 · September 2010

mom2one:
hterry85:

Phantom, those have been my thoughts exactly...And I think a lot of CPs are forgetting, they are getting more TIME with their child than the NCP (not always, sometimes it's 50/50 and one still pays cs) I know there are plenty that fully appreciate that, but I also think there are some that don't realize that value.

Most moms I know would lower or stop child support if it meant they would have more time with their kids. And it's one of the main reasons my ex doesn't pay support.

Hence, that part.

Phantomgirl · September 2010

Libby283:
NikkiJ19:

Yeah somethings like the BM's home I don't feel CS should cover. I am sorry but she would need a place to live if she had the kids or not. As long as the CS covers 1/2 of child care, food (including school lunch), and an amount left over for clothes and fun things I am okay with that. Both of the BM's had a hard time understanding that DH takes care of his kids not the BM's.

I disagree, if their were no children in the picture the BM could live in a smaller home, use less utilities and require less food. Once you add children to the mix, expenses go up. Thats why at least in this state that the court uses an elaborate calculation based on percentages of income, and over nights in which home.

Snap. if their were no children in the picture WE could live in a smaller home, use less utilities and require less food.

But because there a kid in the picture my DH has to pay for these things twice.

libby283 · September 2010

Banana44:

I just think there has to be a better way to handle support and there is a small part of me that thinks there shouldn't be any support for 50/50 custody - as long as Mom has a job. But only a small part.

Child Support is designed to provide the children with the same lifestyle that the kids would have if both parental units were still together. It would not be right for the child to live in poverty in the one home, while living extravagently in the other. Which could happen with one parent making $25k a year, and the other making $125k. The solution was to pass money to the less earning parent to make the childs life comparable in both.

Hope I explained that well.

Phantomgirl · September 2010

sweetie0228:
Banana44:

I personally think that there has to be a better way to handle CS. We have 50/50 custody and still pay over $500/month for 1 child.

BM works and makes a decent salary - but since DH makes more, he has to pay. And that part I am mostly fine with - what I don't agree with is a parent constantly asking for modifications based on bonus or raises. If my DH gets a bonus, raise, or a new job it is becasue of the support from his wife to work long hours, or take a job further from home, or what have you. Why should BM get a chuck of a bonus? I don't think that is right.

I just think there has to be a better way to handle support and there is a small part of me that thinks there shouldn't be any support for 50/50 custody - as long as Mom has a job. But only a small part.

Why shoud the CHILD be denied the chunk of the bonus? The CS is setup in such a way so that the CHILD'S lifestyle is least impacted by the decision by the adults to live separately.

The CS is based on the idea of what would the income be like if these two adults were together and then based on the total combined income the child's care expenses are taken out of that and then it's split between the parents.

For Example: if NCP makes $60K and CP makes $40K a year combined they make $100K then they figure based on the charts at this level of income parents would spend half of the total income on the care and mantinance of the Child. $50K total then it's broken out to say who pays what. NCP pays 60% and CP pays 40% based on the percentage of income brought into the house.So NCP would pay $30K a year or $2500 a month in support. The CP's portion is assumed paid by the fact the child lives w/ the parent.

I have honestly used this formula every time I have asked for a modifcation. I have always come within $5 of what the PA code has also figured.

Honestly, marry a person with out a child living somewhere else if you don't want to deal with it.

Is it a perfect system? No, not anywhere close.

Are there abuses on both sides? Oh you betcha! I take a HARD SIDE EYE to any parent who doesn't bust her hump to make sure her children are well provided for. But if it was part of the ORIGINAL PARENTING CONTRACT for the CP to stay at home with the children, that lifestyle should be maintained.

When my dad got work bonuses he did not give money to my brother and I. However, he usually took the family on a foreign holiday. If my DH got a bonus why should BM get any of it? Why can't we just take SS on a nice holiday with us? Why can't WE treat SS, why does she have to be involved at all?

And if his bonus was split with BM, for SS, and we decide to go on a nice holiday with our half do you think we should leave SS at home?

Banana44 · September 2010

Libby283:
Banana44:

I just think there has to be a better way to handle support and there is a small part of me that thinks there shouldn't be any support for 50/50 custody - as long as Mom has a job. But only a small part.

Child Support is designed to provide the children with the same lifestyle that the kids would have if both parental units were still together. It would not be right for the child to live in poverty in the one home, while living extravagently in the other. Which could happen with one parent making $25k a year, and the other making $125k. The solution was to pass money to the less earning parent to make the childs life comparable in both.

Hope I explained that well.

I know exactly what child support is for. I am a child of divorce and I have a SS. However, if 1 parent chooses to be lazy and not work to full potential, or attempt to not work and live off of child support - that is an adult decision. Also, 1 house can have more money becasue of a step-parent. So if my household has double or triple the amount of income as BM, that does not necessarily have to be changed. Why should BM get my chunk of salary? And I grew up living in poverty at my Mom's but having ski vacations at my Dad's. My Mom was lazy and didn't make any attempts to make more money for herself - she only wanted to be supported by others - including eventually her children.

And, to answer Sweet - I know exactly how child support is calculated. We go to court at least 2x a year in PA - however, my point about bonuses and raises was missed by you, but Phantom seemed to get it.

Child Support is based on the joint income of the parents - since this is what the parents would have been raising child on had they not divorced. But, not all bonuses and raises refelct what the parents would have had together. BM had nothing to do with DH's ability to perform magnificently this year - his long hurs and dedication had to do with his work ethic and his wife's ability to take care of the kids and run the household while he is working- SS deserves the benefits of this and recieves the benefits - its called vacation - BM does not deserve to get extra money for something she does not contibute to. I agree to this in reverse also. We have never asked for a reduction based on her raises or bonuses - it is her money - she worked for the raise or bonus - not DH.

I also think it is unfair to calculate support based on a salary that includes a 1-time bonus. If DH gets a $10,000 signing bonus why should support that goes on for years be calculated using this bonus he will never get again - it is not right! I feel like it should be treated like an inheritance - outside the reach of the ex. so salary should be used - but not bonuses.

Banana44 · September 2010

I wanted to add that even though I have problems with the way the system currently works - and I believe custody and support are based on the "poor mom" syndrome - I did not say that I don't think we should pay support.

We have shared custody and still pay support, 65% of schooling, we pay morning care in full, we pay for all sports and activities in full, I cover SS medical, and I am also the family member who pays for his clothes, supplies, birthday parties, gifts, Christmas, Chanukkah, I pay for the gifts SS buys for his Mom, and we pay for his lunches the days he is with us. We also offered to pay for him to go to parochial school - but BM refused to send him.

So, I'm not saying that the parent who makes more should rub it in the other parent's face; what I'm saying is there needs to be a way to do CS that is more fair to all parties involved - especially if none of the parties are at poverty level.

And I really think that a parent requesting a modification for support needs to have a damn good reason and there should be limits on how frequently they can ask - unless there are outstanding circumstances like loss of job, or health issue.

Ilumine · September 2010

Libby283:
Ilumine:
NikkiJ19:
Ilumine:

I have always thought that the divorced parents should pay 1/2 of the costs of the CHILD/REN in the CP house. Ex, if the CP has 2 kids and lives in a 3 bedroom house that rents at $900 a month, then NCP should pay $300 towards the rent (1/3 of 900 is $300 x 2 kids = $600. 1/2 of $600 is $300). Same goes with utilities and food.

It is not the responsibility of the NCP to pay for the CP's room and board once they divorce, and the CP has EQUAL financial responsibility for her children as well.

Extravegant lifestyles (IPADS come to mind) are not somethign that the NCP should pay for, but not get credit for.

I feel like the CP would need those rooms for the children even if they were the NCP so they shouldn't be included in CS. All the children have rooms in my home that we pay for.

I DO believe that unless there is a 50/50 split, the NCP should pay to house the kids. A NCP who only gets the kids every weekend doesn't have to have the same set up for the kids as a CP - the rooms are not utilized the same way on weekends as weekdays. They don't even need an individual room for each kid.

HOWEVER, I am also a firm believer that a Father (usually the NCP) should have a better chance at being the CP.

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.

But that means that the NCP is actually paying MORE than 1/2 of the care of the children since he/she ALSO has to pay to keep the child at his/her home too.

Now how is THAT fair?

too_much · September 2010

This is the problem that we are having. My H pays cs to support her at her mom's house + we pay everything needed to support her at our house. We are the only ones who sign her up for any activities so we pay those also. BM makes slightly more than my H - we have a 45%/55% custody schedule.

paris.inthe.spring · September 2010

mom2one:
hterry85:
Phantom, those have been my thoughts exactly...And I think a lot of CPs are forgetting, they are getting more TIME with their child than the NCP (not always, sometimes it's 50/50 and one still pays cs) I know there are plenty that fully appreciate that, but I also think there are some that don't realize that value.

Most moms I know would lower or stop child support if it meant they would have more time with their kids. And it's one of the main reasons my ex doesn't pay support.

So, most mom's you know don't want their kid's fathers involved in their lives? That is just sad. I know that there are plenty of people who don't deserve contact with their kids, for one reason or another. But I have a hard time believing that is the norm.

paris.inthe.spring · September 2010

sweetie0228:
Banana44:

I personally think that there has to be a better way to handle CS. We have 50/50 custody and still pay over $500/month for 1 child.

BM works and makes a decent salary - but since DH makes more, he has to pay. And that part I am mostly fine with - what I don't agree with is a parent constantly asking for modifications based on bonus or raises. If my DH gets a bonus, raise, or a new job it is becasue of the support from his wife to work long hours, or take a job further from home, or what have you. Why should BM get a chuck of a bonus? I don't think that is right.

I just think there has to be a better way to handle support and there is a small part of me that thinks there shouldn't be any support for 50/50 custody - as long as Mom has a job. But only a small part.

Why shoud the CHILD be denied the chunk of the bonus? The CS is setup in such a way so that the CHILD'S lifestyle is least impacted by the decision by the adults to live separately.

The CS is based on the idea of what would the income be like if these two adults were together and then based on the total combined income the child's care expenses are taken out of that and then it's split between the parents.

For Example: if NCP makes $60K and CP makes $40K a year combined they make $100K then they figure based on the charts at this level of income parents would spend half of the total income on the care and mantinance of the Child. $50K total then it's broken out to say who pays what. NCP pays 60% and CP pays 40% based on the percentage of income brought into the house.So NCP would pay $30K a year or $2500 a month in support. The CP's portion is assumed paid by the fact the child lives w/ the parent.

I have honestly used this formula every time I have asked for a modifcation. I have always come within $5 of what the PA code has also figured.

Honestly, marry a person with out a child living somewhere else if you don't want to deal with it.

Is it a perfect system? No, not anywhere close.

Are there abuses on both sides? Oh you betcha! I take a HARD SIDE EYE to any parent who doesn't bust her hump to make sure her children are well provided for. But if it was part of the ORIGINAL PARENTING CONTRACT for the CP to stay at home with the children, that lifestyle should be maintained.

This doesn't make sense to me. Does the CP really spend $5,000 a month on a kid?

And the original parenting contract? WTH is that?

libby283 · September 2010

Banana44:
Libby283:
Banana44:

I just think there has to be a better way to handle support and there is a small part of me that thinks there shouldn't be any support for 50/50 custody - as long as Mom has a job. But only a small part.

Child Support is designed to provide the children with the same lifestyle that the kids would have if both parental units were still together. It would not be right for the child to live in poverty in the one home, while living extravagently in the other. Which could happen with one parent making $25k a year, and the other making $125k. The solution was to pass money to the less earning parent to make the childs life comparable in both.

Hope I explained that well.

I know exactly what child support is for. I am a child of divorce and I have a SS. However, if 1 parent chooses to be lazy and not work to full potential, or attempt to not work and live off of child support - that is an adult decision. Also, 1 house can have more money becasue of a step-parent. So if my household has double or triple the amount of income as BM, that does not necessarily have to be changed. Why should BM get my chunk of salary? And I grew up living in poverty at my Mom's but having ski vacations at my Dad's. My Mom was lazy and didn't make any attempts to make more money for herself - she only wanted to be supported by others - including eventually her children.

And, to answer Sweet - I know exactly how child support is calculated. We go to court at least 2x a year in PA - however, my point about bonuses and raises was missed by you, but Phantom seemed to get it.

Child Support is based on the joint income of the parents - since this is what the parents would have been raising child on had they not divorced. But, not all bonuses and raises refelct what the parents would have had together. BM had nothing to do with DH's ability to perform magnificently this year - his long hurs and dedication had to do with his work ethic and his wife's ability to take care of the kids and run the household while he is working- SS deserves the benefits of this and recieves the benefits - its called vacation - BM does not deserve to get extra money for something she does not contibute to. I agree to this in reverse also. We have never asked for a reduction based on her raises or bonuses - it is her money - she worked for the raise or bonus - not DH.

I also think it is unfair to calculate support based on a salary that includes a 1-time bonus. If DH gets a $10,000 signing bonus why should support that goes on for years be calculated using this bonus he will never get again - it is not right! I feel like it should be treated like an inheritance - outside the reach of the ex. so salary should be used - but not bonuses.

Just because one parent does not make a high salary, does not mean that they don't bust their butt for what they do make. My ex makes 4 times the salary I do, and works less than half the hours I do. I wish I had the skills to do his job, where I could work 4 days a week from 8-2 bringing home the income he does.

libby283 · September 2010

Ilumine:
Libby283:
Ilumine:
NikkiJ19:
Ilumine:

I have always thought that the divorced parents should pay 1/2 of the costs of the CHILD/REN in the CP house. Ex, if the CP has 2 kids and lives in a 3 bedroom house that rents at $900 a month, then NCP should pay $300 towards the rent (1/3 of 900 is $300 x 2 kids = $600. 1/2 of $600 is $300). Same goes with utilities and food.

It is not the responsibility of the NCP to pay for the CP's room and board once they divorce, and the CP has EQUAL financial responsibility for her children as well.

Extravegant lifestyles (IPADS come to mind) are not somethign that the NCP should pay for, but not get credit for.

I feel like the CP would need those rooms for the children even if they were the NCP so they shouldn't be included in CS. All the children have rooms in my home that we pay for.

I DO believe that unless there is a 50/50 split, the NCP should pay to house the kids. A NCP who only gets the kids every weekend doesn't have to have the same set up for the kids as a CP - the rooms are not utilized the same way on weekends as weekdays. They don't even need an individual room for each kid.

HOWEVER, I am also a firm believer that a Father (usually the NCP) should have a better chance at being the CP.

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.

But that means that the NCP is actually paying MORE than 1/2 of the care of the children since he/she ALSO has to pay to keep the child at his/her home too.

Now how is THAT fair?

I know in this state thats factored in to the formula, and the NCP is not paying CP for the nights that NCP is providing the care. Also the NCP only pays their assigned percentage for the nights the CP has the children with the CO making up the difference.

If you have two parents that make equal salaries, and share 50/50 time, then no child support should be given to either party. Its when the scales tip, by salary or visitation time, that the difference should be calculated and child support exchanged.

too_much · September 2010

If you have two parents that make equal salaries, and share 50/50 time, then no child support should be given to either party. Its when the scales tip, by salary or visitation time, that the difference should be calculated and child support exchanged.

This is how it was for us for a few weeks, BM and my H make almost equal (she makes slightly more, like a few hundred/year), had 50/50. When BM found out that she would no longer be getting cs, she flipped out, filed an action in court, lied, lied, lied - a year later, here we are, my H lost one night per week, she gets cs and we are just dealing with it.

Ginlyn0 · September 2010

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?

Ginlyn0 · September 2010

Dang, I read something wrong and I can't edit my post in my phone

I got a combination of what Libby and something someone else said mixed up. But, I still don't think half of the housing should be paid by a Ncp

libby283 · September 2010

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?

xmaryrickx · September 2010

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?

I think it would depend on why the child was with the CP 100% of the time.

amiek07 · September 2010

I also agree that housing should not be inclded in child support. My DH makes less than his ex right now and if he had to pay for her housing for the kids we would never have money. We are expected to have a place for the kids to stay too, one of ours is a teenager and needs her own room so we are paying at least $300 more a month just for her room. We don't complain about having to have a full house for the kids even though they are here EOW. We provide almost everything for both households except food at their mom's. Is this fair that we should contribute to the house also?

Libby - your situation is a tad different and I think you are missing that most of us DO provide for the kids extra and we make sure they have a good place to live in. Not all NCP are bad.

libby283 · September 2010

In my situation, bio dad shows complete lack of interest in child and won't even meet her. Former step father is a little more tricky of a situation, it was actually one of the first cases of this kind to go through the state. But basically I have 100% legal & physical custody of her because he is not and never was her legal parent. He only has visitation, which is supposed to be every friday night, so at the most in a year 52 nights. Reality is a lot less than that as he only got her two nights in August, so far none in September, and his next visitation opportunity will be Oct 9.

riabiron · September 2010

amiek07:

I also agree that housing should not be inclded in child support. My DH makes less than his ex right now and if he had to pay for her housing for the kids we would never have money. We are expected to have a place for the kids to stay too, one of ours is a teenager and needs her own room so we are paying at least $300 more a month just for her room. We don't complain about having to have a full house for the kids even though they are here EOW. We provide almost everything for both households except food at their mom's. Is this fair that we should contribute to the house also?

Libby - your situation is a tad different and I think you are missing that most of us DO provide for the kids extra and we make sure they have a good place to live in. Not all NCP are bad.

I second this. Libby it really seems like you are anti NCP. It seems like you have a bad situation, but really that doesn't mean that all situations are the same.

libby283 · September 2010

riabiron:
amiek07:

I also agree that housing should not be inclded in child support. My DH makes less than his ex right now and if he had to pay for her housing for the kids we would never have money. We are expected to have a place for the kids to stay too, one of ours is a teenager and needs her own room so we are paying at least $300 more a month just for her room. We don't complain about having to have a full house for the kids even though they are here EOW. We provide almost everything for both households except food at their mom's. Is this fair that we should contribute to the house also?

Libby - your situation is a tad different and I think you are missing that most of us DO provide for the kids extra and we make sure they have a good place to live in. Not all NCP are bad.

I second this. Libby it really seems like you are anti NCP. It seems like you have a bad situation, but really that doesn't mean that all situations are the same.

Not at all, I think we are just on totally different sides of the coin. Most of you are in the situation where you provide 1/2 the care & share time jointly. I am on the side of the coin where we may not see the other person for a month or two. I provide all the needs, support and parenting by myself. (with the help of my wonderful DF. Gotta give him credit)

(I only count the former step parent, my ex, in this category, I would worry that the world would end if we ever heard from bio dad.)

Ginlyn0 · September 2010

riabiron:

I second this. Libby it really seems like you are anti NCP. It seems like you have a bad situation, but really that doesn't mean that all situations are the same.

I agree with this. I still don't understand, does the bio father pay you CS or your ex? If the bio father does not, why not?

I know I look at things from both CP and NCP side because we are CP to my DD and NCP to my stepkids. I really think the CS system is broken either way you look at it.

sweetie0228 · September 2010

paris.inthe.spring:
sweetie0228:
Banana44:

I personally think that there has to be a better way to handle CS. We have 50/50 custody and still pay over $500/month for 1 child.

BM works and makes a decent salary - but since DH makes more, he has to pay. And that part I am mostly fine with - what I don't agree with is a parent constantly asking for modifications based on bonus or raises. If my DH gets a bonus, raise, or a new job it is becasue of the support from his wife to work long hours, or take a job further from home, or what have you. Why should BM get a chuck of a bonus? I don't think that is right.

I just think there has to be a better way to handle support and there is a small part of me that thinks there shouldn't be any support for 50/50 custody - as long as Mom has a job. But only a small part.

Why shoud the CHILD be denied the chunk of the bonus? The CS is setup in such a way so that the CHILD'S lifestyle is least impacted by the decision by the adults to live separately.

The CS is based on the idea of what would the income be like if these two adults were together and then based on the total combined income the child's care expenses are taken out of that and then it's split between the parents.

For Example: if NCP makes $60K and CP makes $40K a year combined they make $100K then they figure based on the charts at this level of income parents would spend half of the total income on the care and mantinance of the Child. $50K total then it's broken out to say who pays what. NCP pays 60% and CP pays 40% based on the percentage of income brought into the house.So NCP would pay $30K a year or $2500 a month in support. The CP's portion is assumed paid by the fact the child lives w/ the parent.

I have honestly used this formula every time I have asked for a modifcation. I have always come within $5 of what the PA code has also figured.

Honestly, marry a person with out a child living somewhere else if you don't want to deal with it.

Is it a perfect system? No, not anywhere close.

Are there abuses on both sides? Oh you betcha! I take a HARD SIDE EYE to any parent who doesn't bust her hump to make sure her children are well provided for. But if it was part of the ORIGINAL PARENTING CONTRACT for the CP to stay at home with the children, that lifestyle should be maintained.

This doesn't make sense to me. Does the CP really spend $5,000 a month on a kid? No probably not, I used easy calculatable numbers to illustrate a point but, really if together the parents are bringing in $100K a year, IT's not $5000 worth of toys they are buying every month it's , housing, electric, car payments, insurance, Educational expenses, clothes, shoes, sports equipments, Everytime the child goes to a birthday party

And the original parenting contract? WTH is that? You didn't have a discussion together as parents as to how you are going to raise the child? The original parenting contract is the verbal agreement you made together as a couple when it was decided that mom was going to be a SAHM, or that we are going to send little johnny to private school, those large lifestyle decisions are part of the parenting contract. Why should you have to turn to the child and say sorry you have to go to public school now b/c mommy and daddy are getting a divorce and daddy only wants to pay for your bare necessities and nothing more.

The system was originated and based on intact household separeating. It wasn't designed for situaitons where the children were born out of wedlock. The system is woefully behind and there isn't going to be a result that is fair to anyone. But it tries it's best to be fair to the child or childen involved.

paris.inthe.spring · September 2010

sweetie0228:
paris.inthe.spring:
sweetie0228:
Banana44:

I personally think that there has to be a better way to handle CS. We have 50/50 custody and still pay over $500/month for 1 child.

BM works and makes a decent salary - but since DH makes more, he has to pay. And that part I am mostly fine with - what I don't agree with is a parent constantly asking for modifications based on bonus or raises. If my DH gets a bonus, raise, or a new job it is becasue of the support from his wife to work long hours, or take a job further from home, or what have you. Why should BM get a chuck of a bonus? I don't think that is right.

I just think there has to be a better way to handle support and there is a small part of me that thinks there shouldn't be any support for 50/50 custody - as long as Mom has a job. But only a small part.

Why shoud the CHILD be denied the chunk of the bonus? The CS is setup in such a way so that the CHILD'S lifestyle is least impacted by the decision by the adults to live separately.

The CS is based on the idea of what would the income be like if these two adults were together and then based on the total combined income the child's care expenses are taken out of that and then it's split between the parents.

For Example: if NCP makes $60K and CP makes $40K a year combined they make $100K then they figure based on the charts at this level of income parents would spend half of the total income on the care and mantinance of the Child. $50K total then it's broken out to say who pays what. NCP pays 60% and CP pays 40% based on the percentage of income brought into the house.So NCP would pay $30K a year or $2500 a month in support. The CP's portion is assumed paid by the fact the child lives w/ the parent.

I have honestly used this formula every time I have asked for a modifcation. I have always come within $5 of what the PA code has also figured.

Honestly, marry a person with out a child living somewhere else if you don't want to deal with it.

Is it a perfect system? No, not anywhere close.

Are there abuses on both sides? Oh you betcha! I take a HARD SIDE EYE to any parent who doesn't bust her hump to make sure her children are well provided for. But if it was part of the ORIGINAL PARENTING CONTRACT for the CP to stay at home with the children, that lifestyle should be maintained.

This doesn't make sense to me. Does the CP really spend $5,000 a month on a kid? No probably not, I used easy calculatable numbers to illustrate a point but, really if together the parents are bringing in $100K a year, IT's not $5000 worth of toys they are buying every month it's , housing, electric, car payments, insurance, Educational expenses, clothes, shoes, sports equipments, Everytime the child goes to a birthday party

And the original parenting contract? WTH is that? You didn't have a discussion together as parents as to how you are going to raise the child? The original parenting contract is the verbal agreement you made together as a couple when it was decided that mom was going to be a SAHM, or that we are going to send little johnny to private school, those large lifestyle decisions are part of the parenting contract. Why should you have to turn to the child and say sorry you have to go to public school now b/c mommy and daddy are getting a divorce and daddy only wants to pay for your bare necessities and nothing more.

The system was originated and based on intact household separeating. It wasn't designed for situaitons where the children were born out of wedlock. The system is woefully behind and there isn't going to be a result that is fair to anyone. But it tries it's best to be fair to the child or childen involved.

Things change. Life happens. People divorce. You cannot expect everything to remain exactly the same as it was pre-divorce after. It's just not reasonable. Life isn't fair. I don't think it's fair to expect a NCP to pay out so much in CS that they cannot afford to provide themselves with life's basic neccesaties. How is it fair that for one party the life to which they have become accustomed to is considered but not for the other? In a situation of divorce all parties should be expected to adjust their lifestyles to do what is in the best interest of the children-not just one party.

Banana44 · September 2010

paris.inthe.spring:

Things change. Life happens. People divorce. You cannot expect everything to remain exactly the same as it was pre-divorce after. It's just not reasonable. Life isn't fair. I don't think it's fair to expect a NCP to pay out so much in CS that they cannot afford to provide themselves with life's basic neccesaties. How is it fair that for one party the life to which they have become accustomed to is considered but not for the other? In a situation of divorce all parties should be expected to adjust their lifestyles to do what is in the best interest of the children-not just one party.

True That!

Preach on, Paris!

J&A2008 · September 2010

mom2one:
hterry85:

Phantom, those have been my thoughts exactly...And I think a lot of CPs are forgetting, they are getting more TIME with their child than the NCP (not always, sometimes it's 50/50 and one still pays cs) I know there are plenty that fully appreciate that, but I also think there are some that don't realize that value.

Most moms I know would lower or stop child support if it meant they would have more time with their kids. And it's one of the main reasons my ex doesn't pay support.

Yes. This exactly in our situation.

It's by far not the most important factor in our situation, but I do find the standards for CS to be so low they're laughable or darn near insulting.

Mrs.McLovin · September 2010

sweetie0228:

Are there abuses on both sides? Oh you betcha! I take a HARD SIDE EYE to any parent who doesn't bust her hump to make sure her children are well provided for. But if it was part of the ORIGINAL PARENTING CONTRACT for the CP to stay at home with the children, that lifestyle should be maintained.

Being a SAHP is a luxury and not a right. The NCP should not have to maintain that lifestyle.

Want a personalized experience?

It's another CS question

Re: It's another CS question

Choose Another Board

Search Boards