What does child support cover?

[kandyflip03]

I dont mean to be harsh! I really don't! And in instances where the CP and NCP live close to each other, could they not have like joint custody where no one pays child support? From everything I am reading, CP's are made to sound so greedy, I'm sure some really are. But NCP's can be a BIG pain too. I guess I am a bit biased bc I am a CP who gets nada.

 

[simpleguy05]

Theres a good bad and ugly to every side...I know wonderful mothers who ask for only whats right and I know those who are rotten gold diggin you-know-whats who shouldnt even be allowed to raise children. But then you have dads who bend over backwards and some who run for the hills...Just remind yourself of all sides

 

[kandyflip03]

good advice for everyone

 

[Mbarr]

Child support is intended to ensure that the child maintains a similar standard of living to what he/she would have enjoyed had the parents remained together. Of course, the custodial parent benefits incidentally.

In my experience, the people who most resent payment of child support are either ncp's who have never had custody of children, or stepparents (regardless of whether they have prior children for whom they receive support). My interpretation of this is that some ncp's don't have a good understanding of the true cost of raising children, and that some stepparents just resent anything that pulls $ away from the new family.

OP, what specifically does mom ask for more $ for, and how much?

 

[haiku]

child support- as explained to me by the office, is REIMBURSEMENT to the CP. The money is the CP's NOT the childs. So if mom wants to buy a new dress, she can. As for all NCP's out there- caring for children is a full time job. If you were offered a full time job that paid only $300 bucks a month (or whatever amount) would you take that job?

Hey wait a minute? you mean I am supposed to paid for being a parent?

all this time, and no body told me.......who do I call for this paycheck I have been missing?.........

 

[haiku]

as someone mentioned upthread, unless it is something outside of child support and is outlined in the order,the OP is under no obligation to pay for any extras. Certainly if this is court ordered medical, for example, the NCP needs to budget for those surprises in addition to thier monthly support payment, But then we would not calll that an "extra".

if the NCP chooses to spend more on thier children, that should be thier choice, and not because the CP chooses not to budget and rely on "guilting" the NCP.It is up to the CP to come up with the rest of the money that keeps the child in the supposed financial situation they were in before the divorce.


"Extras" for children are something that need to planned and budgeted for, in any family. An NCP family has already budgeted thier childrens needs with child support. Just as the CP has, with thier household income. One cannot assume after support is paid there is always money for "extras" lying around, especially if those extras are part of the child support budget already.

 

[Whyte Noise]

Child support is intended to ensure that the child maintains a similar standard of living to what he/she would have enjoyed had the parents remained together. Of course, the custodial parent benefits incidentally.

In my experience, the people who most resent payment of child support are either ncp's who have never had custody of children, or stepparents (regardless of whether they have prior children for whom they receive support). My interpretation of this is that some ncp's don't have a good understanding of the true cost of raising children, and that some stepparents just resent anything that pulls $ away from the new family.

OP, what specifically does mom ask for more $ for, and how much?

I can't agree with the "similar standard of living" part.

What if mom was a SAHM and dad was the sole breadwinner. Dad had a good job, they lived in an upscale neighborhood, the kids had rooms with TV's, DVD's, PS2, Alienware PC's, the white picket fence, etc. Now, mom and dad are no longer together and we (generic "we") are supposed to believe that it's the NCP's responsibilty to maintain that lifestyle in that home, PLUS maintain their own separate home? It's just not economically possible in most cases to maintain two homes (keeping one at the same level of income/standard of living that it was before separation/divorce) on the one income that hasn't changed.

As for this part of your post:

"In my experience, the people who most resent payment of child support are either ncp's who have never had custody of children, or stepparents (regardless of whether they have prior children for whom they receive support)."

Well, of course the one that resents it would be the one paying it! Certainly the one GETTING the money wouldn't resent the fact they get it. It's MY experience that the one that resents it are the ones that pay their CS and then have an ex that continuously wants more. The ones that resent it are the ones that pay their CS and see their children not being taken care of properly (raggedy clothes, no jackets, shoes with holes in them, etc.).

As an NCP I don't pay support, as a CP I don't get support. My ex and I have split custody of 3 children and no CS is ordered. As a stepparent of 2 girls I don't resent the fact that my husband pays CS to his ex. What I resent is his ex putting a 9 and 12 year old up to calling dad and asking him for more money, asking him to sign a paper to release his held tax return to their mom early because she needs to pay her bills when she works and makes more than he does, when his ex doesn't buy them school clothes or supplies but waits for the freebies from the church so she doesn't have to spend "her" money and gets hand-me-downs from cousins of the kids to wear to school. I resent when she asks him for extra money above the child support because she needs to make her car payment and can't make it because she gave an aunt $500. I resent the fact that she tells the kids their dad doesn't love them because if he did he'd send them more money (even though his CS is garnished and she gets her full amount every month). I resent the fact that their mom treats them like $hit and I have 2 girls telling me they wish I was their mom because I don't yell and scream and cuss at them like their mom does.

I don't resent his ex because she gets CS. I resent her because she is a POS.

 

[Mbarr]

I can't agree with the "similar standard of living" part.

It doesn't matter if you agree with it; that's the theory behind the shared income model of child support. I wasn't stating my opinion, just the facts.

Well, of course the one that resents it would be the one paying it! Certainly the one GETTING the money wouldn't resent the fact they get it.

Please note that the pertinent part of my post to which you attempted to respond is "NCP's who have never had custody." Many times people who do not actively raise children simply do not understand the true cost involved, particularly if the split occurred while the children were very young.

Certainly there are custodial parents who abuse the child support system, who spend the money for their own personal agenda while leaving the children lacking, and who continually request more money when failing to use appropriately the funds they already receive.

I get complaints from both sides of the fence on a weekly basis.

 

[Whyte Noise]

It doesn't matter if you agree with it; that's the theory behind the shared income model of child support. I wasn't stating my opinion, just the facts.

And of course, not every state is an income shares model state either, so this fact doesn't apply in all states.

Please note that the pertinent part of my post to which you attempted to respond is "NCP's who have never had custody." Many times people who do not actively raise children simply do not understand the true cost involved, particularly if the split occurred while the children were very young.

Actually, that's not the part of your post I was replying to, but only a fraction. I was also replying to the stepparent portion as well, hence why I included the entire sentance in my post and responded from the view of a stepparent who is supposed to be one of the ones who, in your experience, falls into one of 2 groups that most resents child support.

Certainly there are custodial parents who abuse the child support system, who spend the money for their own personal agenda while leaving the children lacking, and who continually request more money when failing to use appropriately the funds they already receive.

I get complaints from both sides of the fence on a weekly basis.

No matter if an NCP has ever had custody or not, resentment is bound to crop up at some point in time. It happens with both classes of NCP's. The main complaint I've personally seen (in both NCP's that have never had some form of custody at some point and those that have) isn't that they have to pay, but that what they do pay doesn't seem to be benefitting their child. Sure, we all know rent, utilities, etc. are part of what CS is deemed to be used for, but when your asthmatic child is running around in 20 degree weather in a midwestern state with snow and ice on the ground with nothing but a windbreaker on because mom says she can't "afford" a decent jacket for that child... one has to wonder exactly what she does with the money she gets every month. That scenario would garner resentment towards the CP no matter which class the NCP is in (former custody/never had custody) if they care about their child.

 

[OHIOGUY44095]

child support- as explained to me by the office, is REIMBURSEMENT to the CP. The money is the CP's NOT the childs. So if mom wants to buy a new dress, she can. As for all NCP's out there- caring for children is a full time job. If you were offered a full time job that paid only $300 bucks a month (or whatever amount) would you take that job?

This has to be the stupidest comment I've seen on here. And it's not even a bigger surprise that the not-so-bright workers at the cs agency told you this, too. If CP's like yourself see being a parent as a "full-time job", then maybe you should give custody to the other parent who wouldn't look at it as such a task.

 

[Mbarr]

Actually, that's not the part of your post I was replying to, but only a fraction. I was also replying to the stepparent portion as well, hence why I included the entire sentance in my post and responded from the view of a stepparent who is supposed to be one of the ones who, in your experience, falls into one of 2 groups that most resents child support.

You really need to read carefully. I did not intimate that every stepparent resents child support; however I see many who do. I was stating what I experience in practice. Certainly my post was not aimed personally at you or your situation. I have presented a valid point, as have you. This is not a pissing contest.

 

[spidey225]

kandyflip...if mom wants to buy a new dress with the CS $, it better be for the child, not her! You're right, it is her money, but it is her money in the respect that it is supposed to go for the child's expenses and it is intended to offset those expenses. IT is not alimony, it is called "child support" and that is what it is for. In the long run, the $900 we pay every month should go towards the kid's needs, not mom's desire for a new dress. And that is our gripe--when we notice mom going on trips, buying a new car, (when she had a perfectly good one before and still has it, it is sitting in her driveway) and meanwhile the child comes to us and wants us to buy her new glasses (isn't that considered a necessity? ) or school supplies or new bras (possibly another necessity? ) because "mom says she doesn't have the money". Child support is expressly for the child's needs, not mom's wants. And that is what is wrong with the system. They really should make the CP accountable for the money she gets and how she spends it, because there does seem to be a lot of abuse of the CS system. (Read all the letters on this forum!!) My daughter's friend's mom uses it as money to support all of them, the child, her brother, and mom, as she lives off it and doesn't work, just stays home. She's perfectly capable of working, young and healthy, just chooses not to because the court awarded her such high CS that she can collect it and live off it. And that is what my husband's ex says. She tells his daughter that "I couldn't live if you moved out, that money from him is my main income, I need it pay for the new car and house". And that is fair to us? We don't have a new car. Her main income....and she has a good job! And don't call me bitter, because I am not. I just yearn for a fair system, we are perfectly willing to support his daughter, as long as she is really being "supported" and the money isn't spent on other things, with the leftover $ going towards her support. I hope to hear from all who agree with me!!

 

[Zephyr]

kandyflip...if mom wants to buy a new dress with the CS $, it better be for the child, not her! You're right, it is her money, but it is her money in the respect that it is supposed to go for the child's expenses and it is intended to offset those expenses.

again! cs is a reimbursement, so if the cp does cash the support and go out and buy herself a dress then she is within her right to do that, she has already paid rent/mortgage-which is an expense the child has, utilities-which are an expense the child has, food- which is an expense the child has, transportation- which is an expense the child has, clothing- which is an expense the child has etc. etc. etc.

now as stated before, if the child is going without then the cp may need some money management education, but it is none of anyone else's business what the cp does with the child support, and especially does not owe anyone an accounting of every dollar.

and hoping that a cp would be made to account for the money is a pipe dream, cse can't even keep up with making sure everyone gets/pays their money, now you want them to audit it too? not going to happen.

I never accounted my spending to my ex, and he never asked me to, we both know we love our son and want what is best for him. Although our ideas of what that is may be different. Now that custody has changed I will be paying child support and I will not ever ask or think I have the right to ask for an accounting of that money. Our son has bills in that home, that is what the support will pay.

Granted there are the wack jobs that abuse the system or want to control everything, or ones who want control even when it's not their business (as in the case of new spouses). but on the whole I don't think this has to be such a volatile issue, when looked at from the proper perspective.

 

[Zephyr]

I don't resent his ex because she gets CS. I resent her because she is a POS.


I feel you on this one though, but in my case it's his felon of a girlfriend.

 

[OHIOGUY44095]

now as stated before, if the child is going without then the cp may need some money management education, but it is none of anyone else's business what the cp does with the child support, and especially does not owe anyone an accounting of every dollar.

If child support is truly meant to be a "reimbursement", then the CP should submit all reciepts that pertain to the necessities of the child and the NCP will then cut a check for the appropriate amount to be be reimbursed to the CP for the child. Submit those child expenses just like you're submitting your work expenses for reimbursement.