Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  > An "unofficial" look at CS payment amounts.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 397
view profile
History
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.Page 29 of 31    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)

We ( anyone working and paying taxes) do now.. It's called welfare.


Not exactly the same thing. You pay a percentage of your income in taxes, and then a percentage of that is taken out to fund welfare. So imagine after paying your taxes on your income, they take some more out and give it to your neighbor and he/she doesn’t have to pay taxes on it.


For the most part, this issue has become a problem only because we have taken children out of the issue if child support, can't you see that?


I don’t know one man who has an issue with supporting his children. I do know several that have to fight for visitation time and all manner of other ridiculous arguments after paying their child support though. I think it's women who demean the role of father to ATM, not the men.


The assumption seems always to be if they are upset, it is because they want to be able to be dead-beats without consequences.


Exactly! These men aren’t dead-beats, but because they expect equal treatment and equal responsibility from the women, they are labeled as such.


I've often wondered if there isn't an underlying reason behind setting the tables amounts (at least in ON where I live) so high (and they do seem high to me) is to force men to maintain the "bringing home the bacon" role and enable/encourage women to spend more time with their children and less time working.


I think that’s exactly it. My SO pays his child support willingly, but she works about 10 hours per week, receives a great deal of public assistance and then tells their son that it’s dad’s responsibility to buy him clothes (which includes shopping for them), pay for his activities (and get him involved in all of them on the weekends because she doesn't have time during the week), make sure his homework is done, get his hair cut, essentially take care of everything besides getting him to and from school, all in the 72 hours per month that he has visitation.
 Notdesper8atall
Joined: 6/27/2008
Msg: 398
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/5/2010 4:02:49 PM
"You aren't arrogant enough to believe that the expenses yopu pay are the sole income that provides for your kids are you?
Geeze...I wonder why there was a guideline for child support invented?"

Actually it isnt arrogance..up until this past year I was his sole source of income.
She earned 15 K last year and daycare was never asked for or I would have given my share of it. So before you weild the sword make sure your justified in drawing it.

I do not want to decide how the money is spent. Why folks want to make us look like "deadbeats who dont want to pay" and "money is the only thing that matters" in this kind of situation is beyond me. CS is money... so we are painted with the brush of "money is all that matters to you" brush. It really is insulting and a bit insane since the cs is paid in money.

As I stated before I have never been in arrears ( other than the two week paper shuffling) and have never had an issue with the concept of child support ( even when I had custody for 7 years and got none).

My biggest complaint is that she claims to work midnights ( which she doesn't according to our son) and uses those numbers for daycare expenses. He is school aged and is in a latchkey program before and after school ( cost is 7 dollars a day I called to check on it) so the numbers are fruadulent but there is no need for her to prove them. I on the other hand have to provide all financial records, nearing the same request as an IRS audit. I simply want equal accountability. I dont want to tell you how to spend it but I do want you to actually be able to justify ( honestly)the numbers that you say it does cost. I also believe if there is additional support being provided by another person that that should be factored in as well. I am not fighting to keep money from my son..far from it.

Taken, Here ( in Ohio) such deals as your making with your ex arent possible as CS is taken directly form paychecks and if unemployed arrears add up. The only way cs would stop is with a court order and they arent easily had. While your gesture and intent may be seem by many ( myself included) as fair the courts most likely wouldnt let it fly and he would still be obligated despite your best intentions.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 399
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/5/2010 6:47:23 PM

She earned 15 K last year and daycare was never asked for or I would have given my share of it. So before you weild the sword make sure your justified in drawing it.


Sounds like someone working part time and using the cs and other government programs to pay for something she is unwilling to pay for herself...

something your critic is well versed in!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 400
view profile
History
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/5/2010 8:52:09 PM
Two comments:

CS isn't a payroll deduction in many states unless it is requested as such by the parent receiving it. For most people I know (men & women alike, myself included), it isn't. For all the arguing we do here, in real life, the majority are willing to meet at least some of the financial responsibility for their children. For the majority of recipients, the realization of how easy it is to get "laid off" or work off the books means that they are happy to get any help they can to put food in their kids mouths.

The majority of the arguments presented here evidence the bitter & vindictive nature of those who make them. Remember, every story has three sides, and only one is presented in these forums.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 401
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/6/2010 7:17:59 AM
For all the arguing we do here, in real life, the majority are willing to meet at least some of the financial responsibility for their children. For the majority of recipients, the realization of how easy it is to get "laid off" or work off the books means that they are happy to get any help they can to put food in their kids mouths.

The majority of the arguments presented here evidence the bitter & vindictive nature of those who make them. Remember, every story has three sides, and only one is presented in these forums.


I think also that there are non custodial who complain because they do not like the hypocrisy of some of the woman about having to pay while the same financial self sufficiency is not expected or demanded on both parents.

Now in your own profile...you sound similar to the very active participant who is quick to suggest cs is under paid and only followed due to the laws...while she sits at home and only works part time yet still complains about a lack of funds...while collecting he cs..and government assistance.



If you have children you don't support or don't see, or drink on a daily basis, please don't bother me; we are not a good match. Oh, one more thing; call me a snob, but I've learned enough about myself to know that if you make spelling errors or are grammatically incorrect more often then not, I am not your type, so forgive me if I don't reply to your messages.


Supporting the children as a non custodial parent is also having a house or place that ones children can have when they are visiting their non custodial parent. But I never ever hear a custodial parent acknowledge that as important when they are complaining about a lack of finacial funds. My own position has always been I do not want her money and having children was something I was also part of. I finacially provide everything for the children...as she does not feel it is her requirement...but I leave her money in her household and it allows her to live above her means...at least it allows her to have the house she feels she needs...while providing little for her children. But then that was like being married to her as well.

Now your profile suggests you are in the financial field...why not define your comments in your profile about supporting the children. And when we look at the numbers or costs of raising children I hope you look at the costs both in the custodial home and the non custodial home. I see to many custodial parents only looking at their home and their costs when raising the children and never ever consider the cost that the non custodial bears...as they also have a home that is required for the children to go to and have hopefully some type of relationship with their parent....

But then I find the real barometer of the financial criteria custodial holds...lamenting the problems when the child desires moving and the first numerous posts are filled with losing the house and how the house will be paid for when there is no more cs coming in....or greeny...who was lamenting no more cs...and the children who were going past 18...still needed assistance and she had the home...and still wanted the cash from the non custodial parent...or she would have to kick out her children/adults as they did not want to work full time or go to school.

It takes two participating working parents to raise children. But the laws only require one to work. Perhaps a better reality to cs is shared 50/50 parenting from the immediate breakdown of the marriage....No child support.....the mother pays her way and is financially required to be self sufficinet and provide for herself and her children and the father is still like now be required to be financially self sufficient. I can imagine the part time working deadbeats...or the single mothers still going to school for this diploma or that diploma would not be very happy having society expecting them to be equally providing for their children after free loading for so many years?

Perhaps you want to debate that reality!
 seperate1
Joined: 1/21/2010
Msg: 402
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/6/2010 1:31:50 PM
good post, i think yours was one of the least venomous and most fair, appreciate it.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 403
view profile
History
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/6/2010 9:43:11 PM
First of all, Tealwood, it is apparent that you misconstrued my words completely. For your ease of comprehension, I was saying that most non CP DO pay support for their children. I was also saying that most CPs are happy for any amount that they receive, and don't present petty arguments in an effort to nickel & dime their exes.

That having been said, it is interesting that you use my profile to make assumptions about me. If you really want to know, I am a CP, 24/7, whose ex chooses not to have contact with his children. I do receive CS. It is based on an amount that is 20k less than the lowest wage earned in any of the last 7 yrs. of my 20 marriage, and 80k less than the highest amount. It is my ex, not me, who opted to work part time once we split. It is he who is at home by 3PM each day, while our children remain either alone at home or at an after school program (the cost of which, btw, is paid entirely by me, accounting for a greater percentage of my income than the total he pays for all the expenses covered by CS for all the children).

I don't have to define the comments in my profile, not to you or anyone else. I do not expect to be contacted by those who read into my words as you do, and I have no desire to be. The housing costs of my ex are immaterial in my situation, as he doesn't see them. My profile is specific to me, but my posts are not. You don't get brownie points for picking at my profile, nor does it apply to this situation, or my comments made on this thread, not one bit. Just as you are tired of the hypocrisy of women who complain, so am I tired of the type of men I describe. Supporting children involves sacrifice, and the truth is, many who post in a similar vein to yours are not willing to make that sacrifice; they inadvertently propose that their offspring make them, and their excuses don't hold water. Once you become a parent, "me" takes a step down. I willingly decline shopping trips so that my kids don't go without, and the majority of caring parents do, as well. They are not all women, and I never indicated that they were.

I tried to express that my reality is that the majority of people I have encountered in real life DO care about their kids, and struggle without complaint to provide for them. Something in your own experience led you to attack, using my personal...., excuse me, your assumptions of my personal situation. I continue to see, each & every day, parents who "suck it up", realizing that life isn't fair, and sacrifice for the sake of their kids, and I stand by that view. Those of whom you speak are the minority. My profile as well, addresses the minority, and I want nothing to do with them.

Clear?
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 404
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/7/2010 4:39:37 AM

^^^^^okay...let's back the truck up a little..

Yes. Why don't you. Let me answer those questions for you because yu've lost your ability to see the forrest through the trees.
Your question:

Why didn't your Ex ask for help with childcare?

His answer:

I currently pay just over 400 per month they want to increase it to 1,100

Which brings two points to mind
1) How does one expect a man to nearly triple support payments - which conveniently doubles her income (keeping in mind he pays the higher tax rate and she pays no taxes).
2) This is another case of women playing god and crushing men as much as possible - not really caring about the father/child relationship and his ability to financially support their (child/father) personal relationship

they want to increase it to 1,100 but offered to take 750 when according to the tables it should only be 450 ( without daycare expenses)

Crush the father (cash cow).
The bottom line is that she, even as a single woman (no kids), would have a difficult time living off $15,000. I guess we can blame the parents - not her.(sarcasm)

Why didn't you ask IF she needed help or offer to pay a portion of it?

Yeah, right!
Have you been reading his posts? I'd never offer money to someone who has a free legal representative and a selfish attitude..... that's just plain stupid!
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 405
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/7/2010 11:20:14 AM

I was saying that most non CP DO pay support for their children. I was also saying that most CPs are happy for any amount that they receive, and don't present petty arguments in an effort to nickel & dime their exes.


Not debating that this was what you were or were not saying. I just took what was said and then read your profile as to what was also suggested or said.

And why not read or discuss Custodial fathers and how many receive or in fact even ask for cs? You receive cs even if it is less than what you feel it should be. I like perhaps a majority of custodial fathers have seen a dime of cs....and have been primary custodial parent for over 7yrs now...and for most years...24/7 for one child.

We have plenty here who call the ex's deadbeats...who whine about the costs of raising children...while working part time or going to school. In fact..we have numerous single mothers going back to school ...which then begs the question why they had children in the first place before they were capable and ready to provide for themselves and any children they might have....unless of course...they had or felt they were entitled to the wallet...



It is my ex, not me, who opted to work part time once we split.


Talk about a lazy ass tool....just like the custodial mother who also makes that same choice...so why not talk about custodial fathers who work full time and compare that to custodial mothers...in percentages of course...it seems statistics suggest one gender is more likely to be found raising their children while working full time.



Supporting children involves sacrifice,


Sorry but I have never seen taking care of my children as a sacrifice....it was a lifestyle choice to be a primary or full time parent. I would never want to have my children feel I sacrificed to be their father. It was something I fought to have. Maybe that is the difference between custodial fathers and custodial mothers....you simply have it given to you...where the custodial men have to fight tooth and nail to have the opportunity.

And like yourself i have encountered ncp and cp parents and often money is a problem as one feels the other should follow their perception of how or where the money should be spent. But the power or control does lie in the hands of the custodial parent...making it easier for them to perhaps know what is is the right use of money.

I have no problem justifying where the money is spent or if it needs to be spent. The braces for both, she was informed if she wanted to object..then I paid for them. The sport registration i paid for after she was informed they wanted to play...and what night it was..so I paid...I drove..and I enjoyed the time with the children.

The after school care..I also paid and never said a word about what that did to my cash flow.

And I happen not to agree with your premise that most custodial mothers are happy with what they receive. To often on this forum or in person all I hear is whining or complaining about what the true cost of raising a child is...and how the ncp is not paying enough.
 Notdesper8atall
Joined: 6/27/2008
Msg: 406
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/7/2010 2:11:38 PM
"^^^^^okay...let's back the truck up a little..Why didn't your Ex ask for help with childcare? Why didn't you ask IF she needed help or offer to pay a portion of it?
Even you have to admitt it must be pretty hard to pay for daycare, rent, food and clothing on a $15,000 salary...despite what your $400 a month child support added.. "

I have no idea why she didnty ask for help with it.. perhaps one reason may be that she has just now ( this year) got a job. Not to sound callous ( but I am sure it will to some) its not my place to ask her if she needs more money as she is an adult and perhaps capable of supporting herself and uour son ( my assumption of course).

As for her other expenses.. She lives with her boyfriend who makes a good money ( in excess of 6 figures) so her rent,food, etc are pretty much a moot point. So my 405 per month does indeed cover my part of our sons expenses.

So one must logically ask if you were fine for the pervious 6 years with no job why is it that since you now have an additional 15K in income that you need to triple my part of the equation? I do agree that 15k is not a very livable wage after taxes but how can you say you spend 6 k in daycare expenses and live on the rest? Even the magistrate was dumbfounded by those numbers, and she basically called bullshvt on them.. As tealwood mentioned this would essencially double her income ( with no taxes) and take 30 percent of mine ( before taxes with no tax break for me whatsoever). And yu think that fair or equitable? Sorry but it is not way such.

As for your over and above comment on my saving for his college I have only this to offer. Since the amounts of support are based on the idea of the amount is what you would be spending on the child if you were still together...How can one logically argue against the fact my saving for his college shouldnt be looked at, in any negotions on how much financial support I do indeed supply. And lets face it.. with her income how much can she put away for his college?

I once again have no problems in paying a fair amount of support but my arguement is that we do have a shared parenting agreement and her decisions have not included me at all and I am supposed to just roll over and pay for her choices with no input that I am supposedly given with the shared parenting agreement? In my line of thinking this does indeed violate the basic concept of a shared parenting agreement. I have offered to pay and additional 200 per month and think ( along with the magistrate so far as my income has only gone up 4 K since the amount was set you do the math..) that I have made more than a fair offer.

This issue comes to trial in March as it has been in two hearings so far. CSEA has appointed her an atty ( no cost to her) in this case and I have had to hire my own ( yet more money that wont be able to go towards my sons future or my own) and we all know they dont work cheap. My atty told me that the magistrate "urged" the CSEA atty to get her client to take the offer as she may not be so generous if this matter does indeed come to trial.

*Edit* Oh and a side note of sorts...Our son also mentioned that moms car is broken and she wants to get a new one but she cant afford one. I wonder how much of this has to to with the inflated numbers she has presented. Before you go giving me grief..Everywhere they would have to go ..shopping , school and the doctor are within 4 blocks of where they live ( other than her job). One of the benefits of a bigger city I guess. I do believe this is more of her wanting to juggle the numbers in order to buy a new car than the actual need of finances to raise our son.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 407
view profile
History
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/7/2010 4:10:02 PM
Talk about a lazy ass tool....just like the custodial mother who also makes that same choice...so why not talk about custodial fathers who work full time and compare that to custodial mothers...in percentages of course...it seems statistics suggest one gender is more likely to be found raising their children while working full time.


It's not about lazy, it's about avoidance of responsibility. It's about the people of whom you speak, and the real story behind most of the posters here. It's about your assumptions, whether it be of my profile, or the parents who complain. For the most part, those who complain leave out a great deal of the story, and there are equal numbers of men & women who do so. For the most part, whether you admit it or not, those who are not able to work full time were in compliance, so to speak, with the wishes of their ex. It may be a fact that they are mostly women, but it is still a fact. We like to think that things have changed so much, but that is not always the case. CPs who are male may very well be more likely to work full time, but who's to say that they aren't the same men who wouldn' t "allow" their wives to work when they were married? Who's to say that that isn't because men who win in custody battles tend to breed with less educated women, or those who are younger, with no work experience? I'm not saying that this is the case, necessarily, but the percentage of men who have their kids 24/7 is so small that it is difficult to ascertain; I wouldn't venture to judge men by the fact that most of them don't have custody of their kids! So many talk about how difficult it is for men to fight to keep their children, and it is, but the reality is that for parents who don't agree, it is difficult for both parties. The fact is that most men don't fight. I am not sitting of judgment of men for this, but I am tired of those who pretend to know why, or act as if women rule the world. Anyone who has been in court with an ex knows full well that the one with most money for a lawyer wins, and attorneys provided for those who can't afford one are less than stellar. The bs on these forums is phenomenal! In any case, every one of us has a story to tell, and it is difficult for most to disassociate their story from the majority.

In any case, for every story, there is another side, and the truth. For me, I'd rather not talk about custodial fathers vs. custodial mothers, I'd rather acknowledge that there are people of both genders who shirk responsibility, then blame it on someone else. I don't need to make assumptions about any one of them to do it, either, and most certainly not make those assumptions based on a few words written on a profile on a dating site. Nuff said.
 Notdesper8atall
Joined: 6/27/2008
Msg: 408
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/7/2010 5:43:31 PM
"I just want to say to all these guys that you have to MAN up and take care of YOUR kids.. "

Usually I wouldnt give this comment any effortor to respond to it based on its pure assumption but today is indeed another day and I do personally take offense to its very base.

You assume that anyone ( guys as you mention but not the women) aren't manning up when they argue that the current system is not treating us fairly? You have no clue of what I have "manned up" and done for my children ( and I have done and still do plenty). I have done what it takes to see to the needs ( and their future) of my children and will continue to do so. I do however expect their mothers to do the same. To ask me to carry more of the burden because they choose not ( because I make more money) to and my calling them on it doesn't make me any less an man or any form of deliquent parent.

"I have paid to get them out of bad situations when I didn't have to.. "

This was your CHOICE to do..I also, have chosen to do things I didnt have to as well but have no need to bring those up as they were indeed choices. But this current situation ( nearly triple in support) isn't about my choice now is it?

Actually I guess you could say it is.. I could roll over and pay without saying a word ( manning up by your description)and trust the it would all be for our sons benefit or I could simply ask: "Wait a minute .. Why does it take that much more to support our child? Please explain why and justify the numbers for me." I don't think those are unreasonable questions and considering it is a matter of our sons welfare I deserve the answers. If you can justify the figures then I have no problem. But to just pay because its asked by your assumption would be "manning up" in your opinion. Sorry but I "choose" not to agree with your definition of the phrase. I am not going to roll over without good reason. Perhaps your term would be more correct as "sheeping up" and just do what your told to.


"If you want to be a peice of crap then that is your right but don't call yourself a father if you want to blame the mom for your own short comings... "

Funny, but since I have followed this thread since its very beginning I only recall one poster who would fall into this catagory you mention ,but you assume its all the fathers fault for wanting fairness in the equation. Once again you have failed to understand CS is not always ordered to be paid by fathers but you've again made it a gender thing. Apparently any mother who pays cs and is this situation is a piece of crap too? You fail to understand many fathers are CP's and do not ask for support. In the case of my two oldest children I won custody and didnt want support as she couldn't and wouldn't have paid it anyway.

I know what it cost so to raise children, this isn't my first rodeo after all, my two oldest children are 22, and 21, the youngest is 9. But I simply fail to see the reasoning behind some posters who choose to assume I am less of a man or less of a parent by asking them to show me why its going to cost me so much more all of a sudden, and to prove it with solid evidence not just assumed numbers.
 Notdesper8atall
Joined: 6/27/2008
Msg: 409
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/8/2010 7:47:04 PM
"^^^^Your assumption is why you are in the position you are of her asking to triple the support you pay...Not to sound callous but you have a responsibility to make sure that your finances are in order as an adult. It never bodes well for an ostrich to stick his head in the sand because he thinks it makes him invisable."

Are you really serious? Its not a question of my finances here being in order. For six years I was his sole source of support but now since she has a job I have to pay even more..and you questions my finances? Seems MY financial ability isn't in question but rather her ability to provide considering she now has an additional 15 K to put forth. Step back and do the math Liz. So your saying that she deserves an additional 12 K to raise a child.? Based on what justification?

"^^Really? So your position is since someone else is paying for your kids expenses you are not responsible?...come on now. It really dosen't matter if your Ex won the lottery and became a multi-millionaire...you would still be responsible for your porportionate share according to the guidelines.
At what point would you seperate your assumptions from your responsibility?"

Again your grasping at some seriously flawed arguements. Never did I say or look for a way to renig on my financial responsability. According to the guideline Liz my support would be raised a total of $100 a month ( without daycare expenses). So your saying that the rest of the cost is for daycare for a school aged child? That means it costs 1200 a month for daycare ( since my half would be 600) for a school aged child and her part time job? Thats not likely now is it? If it was then perhaps she would be better off taking in other kids and doing daycare because at those rates watching 3 kids would make her income far more than what it is now. So considering I offered 200 a month how the heck do you think i am in any way looking to pay less? No where did I say since he is indirectly paying expenses did I expect it to lower mine. But if your going to factor in all the costs here then you should have to factor in all the income sources. Actually if she did win the lottery and her income would far surpass my own that I should pay even more in support because she made more? I suppose that kind of logic works in your mind but in reality it is bs.

But please enlighten me on how you think tripling the support amount is justified when my wages have only gone up 4K. And her's have gone up 15K.
 Notdesper8atall
Joined: 6/27/2008
Msg: 410
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/9/2010 9:27:22 AM
"I am just going to ask you why things are so acrimonious now with your EX... "

Fair question and only answer I can offer is based on assumption ( because I cant read her mind) but I would assume it had something to do with a request from our son to either be able to spend more time with myself (our time together is limited because of her move to where she lives now and he isnt happy about it) and his half brother( who lives with me) or maybe be allowed to come live here. So some background for you..The issue started with a request filed with CSEA for an increase in CS( by her). I filled out the paperwork and made copies which I forwarded to my atty. They take the numbers and base their decision soley on the numbers given to them and amend support according to their tables without regards to any information other than what is asked for. In other words there are no fill in the blanks for situations that would be considered to deviate from the tabled amount. After a review of the numbers ( usually a week to ten days) they make a decision and it becomes in fact the new amount of support without a court order. While they can increase support upon "their determination" the reverse isnt ever an option ( they have no problems telling you this either). You are afforded 21 days to appeal their decision but as I previously mentioned they will not and cannot hear reasons to deviate from the questionare. SO the only logical course is to take the issue to the family courts directly as they have final say in all such matters and will and do take all reasons to deviate from the tabled amounts.

The initial amount that CSEA determined was 780 per month or roughly double what the current amount is. After I contested that amount with the court the number has magically increased to 1,100 per month . Their explination was that yearly totals for daycare had not been known until then. I did, however, find it curious since this was all started in November. As well my year end total was known and was lower than the year before. And before you ask or assume..No I had not underemployed myself or taken money under the table to hide income, we simply did not have the volume of work we had in previous years due to the poor economy. So in turn my final number for the year was indeed lower.

I would also point out that she did indeed recieve spousal support for 4 years which was approximately the same amount ( $450 per month) as well as a lump sum for a buyout of the house, life insurance and pension) which totaled 40K and given the tax deduction for our son. I also carry health insurance on our son and her only cost is half of the uninsured expenses. If you do the math..she wasn't living the highlife but she wasn't hurting either. Also based on those numbers I doubt she would have qualified for much in the way of government assistance. Even a part time job when he beagan school ( he is now 9) would have gone a long way in providing a better standard of living for our son, if taken on her part. But I can only assume that she felt it was more my responsability to carry the burden that to share it.

I have always done my best to work with her on visitation and other issues that have come up over the years ( in other words I gave her what she wanted) even if it wasn't in my best interest. However as I look back I have pretty much rolled over and created this situation in some ways for not having spoken up sooner. So I no have little doubt her resolution to get even more has grown simply because she figures I will once again cave in, unfortunatley she is wrong in this instance.

She has always been about control and having it, when she cant have it she looks for other ways to gain it, in this case it would be by getting my support raised thereby controlling more of the money she no longer has control of anymore. So instead of taking the steps to get her own finances in line with the standard of living she has chosen to live, she figures she will go back to the barn and milk the cow that has given her the ability to do so in the past, while still taking advantage of her current relationship to aid in raising her lifestyle as well. Again I would point out that this is speculation on my part but, it is based on 15 years of experiance of dealing with her
 sjp1969
Joined: 12/28/2007
Msg: 411
view profile
History
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/9/2010 11:05:40 PM
Correction: I spend 90% percent of my income from my work on my children plus the child support. Their expenses don't change just because we are divorced. A divorce doesn't undo the fact that you have children to support. Sounds like someone is quite bitter.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 412
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/10/2010 5:04:10 AM
Divorce does not undo the responsibilibty of ones children...but it does undo the responsibilbity of having the fund....pay and be resposnible for someone who is unwilling to provide their share or do their part in the equation.

Best investment I ever made.
 Notdesper8atall
Joined: 6/27/2008
Msg: 413
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/10/2010 10:20:24 AM
"Correction: I spend 90% percent of my income from my work on my children plus the child support. Their expenses don't change just because we are divorced. A divorce doesn't undo the fact that you have children to support. Sounds like someone is quite bitter."

I will assume that was directed my way. If you had indeed read all of my posts you would know that I am in no way bitter but rather annoyed over this issue as it borders on fraud. While a childs expenses dont change because we are divorced it does however require both parents to make the financial effort not one as their are now two households one of which I am responsable for and one which she is responsable for. Or are you suggesting that a ncp is entirely responsable for both ?

I would also like to ask how you yourself survive if you do indeed spend 90% of your income on your children?
 Notdesper8atall
Joined: 6/27/2008
Msg: 414
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/14/2010 7:19:49 PM
"^^^^^BINGO.....it is totally about a sense of control. I do empathize with you as I am going through a very similiar situation myself right now.
There is a remedy to squash that feeling of insecurity that as a parent your Ex feels...it is half communication and half comprimise....let me know if you figure out how to balance the two!
As for me...some little sense of acknowledgement of how I managed to provide for my kids and survive would go a long way with me when it comes to my Ex.....so I do understand your feelings of being backed into a corner...but just so you realize...it is really not a gender specific isssue....unless your posting on these single parent forums I guess.! "

Communication and compromise only work when your looking to achieve a similar goal. I do not believe that she and I are reading the same book let alone the same page of the same book. So communication and compromise arent effective in this scenario, unfortunately.

I have no need to control any part of this other than my own part and I am drawn into a legal battle to do so. I will once again state that I have no problem paying CS but I do believe that the term "fair amount" in her eyes is far more than is necessary to do so. I know from experiance what it takes and what it costs to do so, as I have done it and in the process no one suffered for it.

SO its not that I feel like I have been backed into a corner.. I have been backed into the corner and there are two ways out. One is to hang your head and pay ( some call it manning up and the right thing to do).. The other is to ask why and end up fighting your way out. Unfortunately ( for them not me) I have chosen the later as I dont think the former is really manning up or the right thing to do.

Child support should never be a gender specific issue..both genders should be supporting the child/ren. It only becomes specific to gender on a case by case situation as far as who is and isn't doing their part.
 Notdesper8atall
Joined: 6/27/2008
Msg: 415
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/21/2010 11:04:10 AM
"Careful who's train you hitch your argument too...We are sometimes judged by the company we keep!"

All too true when the judgements we make are based purely on assumption alone. But then again in some threads we have little to go on and are left with only speculation to form an opinion. I will freely admit that I too, have fallen into this catagory at times and am not afraid to admit when I have mistakenly done so, so I try to choose my words carefully.

While we may be heading in the same direction we may not be on the same track but rather a parallel rail as I know I prefer to be my own engine rather than along for the ride.. That way I pull my own weight and refuse to drag along dead weight simply because I have the power to do so.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 416
view profile
History
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/27/2010 1:21:22 AM
Simply, CS payments (at least in NY) are based on the percentage of income which has been determined as applicable to the expense of providing for children being applied to each parent in amounts equal to their percentage of income. For example, if you have two children, you add together the two incomes, then apply the income percentage to that total. Divide by 52, that's the weekly payment. For a man earning 50K/yr., with a coparent earning 30K, that means .25 of 80K, or $20K in child expense. Since the man earns 5/8 of the income, he pays 5/8 of the expense, or 12.5K/yr.

We could all make arguments against the fairness, valid ones even, albeit based on personal experience but, in general, they do seem fair to me.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 417
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/27/2010 8:03:28 AM
ohwhynot46....

Seems fair when the one is earning 50K to the other earning 30k assuming they are both working full time...but is their a legal requirement for the custodial parent to work full time when it is required of the non custodial?

Fair??

Or when the custodial parent is earning the same amount of money as the non custodial yet you would I imagine still expect the same cs payments? is that fair?

Or when a custodial parent works full time and earns more money....something statistics suggest found more with male custodial parents....why is it fair that a custodial parent who earns more still be sitting their with their hands out demanding money?

So perhaps one determines fair by the side of fence they happen to be standing on!


Hey, I've been searching through the post but I can't see if the original question was ever answered. How are the federal CS tables derived?

The Anatomy of Canada’s Child Support Guidelines: The Effects, Details, and History
of a Feminist Family Policy

Douglas W. Allen
Simon Fraser University

Abstract:
Recent studies have shown that Canada’s Child Support Guidelines, adapted from the U.S. “Wisconsin” model, have serious negative incentive effects on marriage stability. The source of this outcome is found in the design of the guidelines, which consistently transfer net wealth to the custodial parent. This paper examines the details of Canada’s guidelines, and then traces backwards to their source. It argues that the guidelines are the logical implication of family policy based on feminist theories of the family. The paper concludes that an institutional view of the family is a better model to base family law on.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1441607



But you might also Google Senator Anne Cools who articulated a theory during a speech to the Senate:


"The evidence indicates that child support guidelines were never about the best interest of children but were instead about transfer of wealth from support-paying parents, mostly fathers, to support-receiving mothers, under the guise of child support"


Livingagoodlife....what might also be a good question is why a parent who is involved with their children in terms of co-parenting and having heir own housing costs to manage are required to pay the same amount of cs as a parent who is not involved?

Also try Googling the economist Ross Finne. He was instrumental in developing some of the formulas even if he he opposed the actual guidlines implemented as being too rigid and would generate inequitable awards and would create effects of work effort...perhaps illustrated by part time jobs while collecting cs?

But I also challenge anyone to look at the profile of the custodial parent who is complaining about the cs they do not receive...part time or still a student long after one would suggest they should be finished their schooling. I also suggest that career choices are something that one makes and I fail to understand why one should be awarded by someone else for the choice they made in life when they are not doing the job they could have? I made my career choice and there is no one else who is responsible or should be responsible for that choice. yet to often woman whine or suggest they were disadvantaged by having children. That was perhaps once true but today the reality is the ones who are no where in life are there because of their own choices in life and to blame it on children or expect the other parent to finacially compensate for ever is corrupt.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 418
view profile
History
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/27/2010 8:17:37 PM
Every scenario is different. If two parents agreed that it was in the best interest of their children for one of them to remain at home until the children went to school, then it could be considered fair that this arrangement be continued.

When the CS earns more, than they receive less, percentage wise. To say that they are "sitting with their hands out" as if they are stealing from you, is suggestive. The truth is that BOTH parents are responsible to provide financially for their children, regardless of income.

There was really no need for argument here. I simply answered as to what I believe the tables were based on. Again, if it can be determined that approx. 25% of combined income is spent on child expenses, then providing for this percentage relative to percentage of income does seem fair.

There are tons of examples where parents of both genders avoid responsibility; they conveniently have trouble finding or keeping a job, they get "injured" on the job, all in an effort to reduce payments made to someone they have come to feel vindictive against. That doesn't make the basic premise, or calculation, unfair.

It is simply not true that only one parent is required to work, and it is not a mandate at all! That determination is made by the court in individual cases and, as is the way of the law, the party with the most money to expend on an attorney usually prevails. No one has said that the courts are fair, or that it is their job to monitor the fairness of every situation, we are discussing CS payments & how they are determined.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 419
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/28/2010 7:20:17 AM

It is simply not true that only one parent is required to work, and it is not a mandate at all! That determination is made by the court in individual cases and, as is the way of the law, the party with the most money to expend on an attorney usually prevails. No one has said that the courts are fair, or that it is their job to monitor the fairness of every situation, we are discussing CS payments & how they are determined.


Okay; So where would there be a law or legal requirement mandating that the custodial parent must have a job? Now in Canada we have some whacked on rules in terms of cs requirements for children who are not biologically yours....but it also never requires custodial parents to hold down a job.

In fact....a woman can remarry and then become a stay at home parent to a new child from that marriage and not pay cs to children from her first marriage. As it seems it is her "right" to stay at home and nurture her child. Or a woman can re-marry and not work with her custodial children being supported by her new husband but still expect the ex husband to pay his appropriate cs as it is not the expectation of the new husband to be finacially supporting the children. But the courts or laws do not require the mother or custodial parent to be finacially contributing.

So are the requirements in New York for both parents to be finacially supporting the children?

As to the new husband...his income is not allowed to be considered...LOL unless he becomes an ex himself...then the custodial mother can ask for cs from the step father..and collect from both the biological father and the step father.

Again never requiring the mother or custodial parent to actually be holding down a job herself.


Then again shouldn't a custodial parent be entitled to a caregiver amount?


No. I have a house and would have a house if they were here full time...the majority of the time or simply every other weekend and I was the non custodial parent.

As custodial parent I am entitled to claim the CCTB and when younger benefit from the tax deductions. But I thought the option of having children was the joy they brought to you? yet it seems like many other custodial parents you think you deserve a payment for what you do! so what amount do you place on your children? How much are they worth it to you?


Furthermore, aren't federal cs tables based on 60/40? So if the co-parenting arrangement is 50/50 or 55/45 then the tables wouldn't apply and a lesser amount or even no payment at all would be required.


Really? How so? 60/40 and the tables were or for some are used and then the larger amount owing is deducted from the lesser amount and then the amount is paid out to the lower income parent...but the Supreme Court did overturn that principle....a few years ago.

Federal cs tables are based on income. Nothing else.


I would love to hear some ideas as to how that could work so I could present to the ex. Perhaps this week with you next week with me kind of thing but how would that work for the kids. It seems like a yo-yo type arrangement for the kids.


I had it occur for one of the two children for a couple of years...after a few years of every other weekend ????? decided to split the week 50/50....little problem as both houses were in the same school district and a few minutes from each other. But after a couple of years gradually ???? choice is back using this house as primary housing point.

I suggest that the problem is often more often the parent and not the children. Just like temp workers who every day go to different place to work...you adapt.

CS is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Now payments like sharing dental costs or post secondary education I have a different slant on.

But then unlike you livingagood life...I have not put a value on the head of my children.
I am capable of paying for their needs and I would have the same housing costs if they were here 20% or 100% of the time....

So where is this need for a caregiver amount? I think you need to stop seeing your children as a source of income! So are you also always found with your hand out at the government agencies suggesting it is your right to have these funds for your choice to have children? One makes the choice to have children. One would hope that when the choice was made, they had a place to live and the finacial capability to support themselves and their children. But we know often people are not that bright or realistic and we have single parents going to school and not working whining about why they need more money from the ex when no ones asks why they are themselves not working and not capable of being self sufficient.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 420
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/28/2010 11:43:06 AM
Then again shouldn't a custodial parent be entitled to a caregiver amount?


I fail to see where you say "should'nt a full time custodial parent get a caregiver amount".....or a parent whose non custodial ex partner should pay if they are not involved and not pay if they are involved.


I don't even get cs. You sound really upset about the cs you pay. Maybe you should try contacting your MP to try and bring about constructive, positive change or return to court to have your situation reviewed stop projecting your own anger at others.


LOL...never paid a dime! They either live with me full time or over the golden 50%---60% of the time...and over the last 7 1/2 years it is probably averaged out at 80% plus...and I have a record going.

Never received a dime...and as my ex has a house and a home that also has to be paid for...so the children can have a choice as to where they might wish to live...without crippling the non custodial parent...I happen to see that as more important than extorting funds out of the other parent.

But then that requires the custodial parent to actually working and earning an income and we have some very vocal custodial mothers who either do not work or work part time using cs and government programs to top up what they feel they are not required to earn on their own merit.


Where did you get a value on my kids' head from that?


Then again shouldn't a custodial parent be entitled to a caregiver amount?


Asking for a caregiver amount is putting a value on what one would expect a parent to be doing. I fail to see why I should be given any amount for doing and following through what is what I should be doing since I am responsible for my children. The other reality is why should the non custodial parent be adding to the finacial resources of the custodial parent? What portion per child in square feet is deemed as required and then is a income transfer from a custodial parent to a non custodial parent?

The existing system in Canada has a component of 100-125 sq feet per child housing cost that effectively transfers resources from the hands of the non custodial parent into the hands of the custodial parent without any consideration of the same costs that the non custodial is required to bear if they are to be involved and have housing.

Why not sit back and evaluate the disposable income of two parents earning $50,000 per year in Brampton. 2 Children ? Simplified tables $753 month

custodial parent $50,000 + $9,036 = $59,036
non custodial $50,000 - $9,036 = $40,964

Now you being in the financial field know that the income tax of the non custodial parent is paid on the $50,000 less the Federal tax credit...but the custodial parent pays on the $50,000 less the same Federal tax credit and the additional spousal credit so the actual taxes paid by custodial parents is less than what non custodial parents on the exact same income earned.

Then on top of that lowered income tax paid the custodial parent also benefits from additional tax write offs and the CCTB.

So I ask how much financial value...or how much more financial value do you put on the head of each of your children as a custodial parent?

Now in our situation we do not realize the benefit of the cs in our hands...but I assume you are collecting the CCTB and are gaining the benefit of the additional tax credits.

But what the heck....if my math or beliefs are faulty then feel free to critique the postings....i was always brought up with the concept if you do not want to be critiqued....keep your opinion to yourself or find a doormat who agrees with everything you say?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 421
view profile
History
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 2/28/2010 6:59:06 PM

Okay; So where would there be a law or legal requirement mandating that the custodial parent must have a job? Now in Canada we have some whacked on rules in terms of cs requirements for children who are not biologically yours....but it also never requires custodial parents to hold down a job.


There is no legal requirement to have a job for either parent. Income can be imputed, and this is often the case, based on past years' tax returns, as well as the ability to earn income. It is obvious that Canada is quite different from the US, but that doesn't negate any parents responsibility for their offspring. In any case, it is my opinion, and perhaps shared by the courts, that a woman at home with a baby does contribute to the family. Assuming that the nonCP's payments don't increase in the example you mention, then I guess the step parent IS contributing to the support of that child, isn't he?
In any case, the answer to your question is, for the most part, yes. The tables as I showed them do indeed base CS payments on the assumption that both parents are supporting their children. If one earns 90% of the income, then that person is responsible for 90% of the 25% of total income attributable to the cost of raising (in the instance where 25% applies) two children.

I agree with you, the problem is the parents, not the children, and it doesn't seem to matter which side of the argument one is on. However, assuming that someone who brings up the need for payment to a caregiver looks upon children as income producers is quite ludicrous. I know that child care for only one of my three children costs exactly 23% of my AGI; my ex contributes zero for that ex[ense, so it can hardly be said that I "profit" , or that I don't sacrifice. Certainly, children bring joy to their parents (mostly), but to deny the fact that raising children involves sacrifice (opportunity cost, if you will), is simply having one's head in the clouds. Particularly for those of us who are single, parenting REQUIRES sacrifice. Accepting this willingly without denying the fact that it exists, is part of maturity & realism.
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  > An "unofficial" look at CS payment amounts.