Soultion to child support battles

[ra04152010]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Tn

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Tn

I have a way to figure child support so that it would be fair to every child and dead beat parents cannot use excuses to get more or pay less. There is no more or less just what the child needs. Here it is let me know what you think.
Steps:
1.Each county would need to figure the average cost to raise a child. As an example lets use $150,000.00.
2. Divide that by 18 years that works out to be roughly $8,333.00 per year. This is what a traditional two parent household would have to pay to meet the necessities of a child. When the house hold is divided the cost is divided EQUALLY.

3. Each parent would contribute roughly $4,180.00 per year to raising the child.

4. The NCP pays the CP roughly $384.33 per child per month.

5. NCP receives credit for days child is in there care which averages out roughly $11.50 per day credit.

6.The only extra would be if the child has high medical expenses due to an injury or illness.

And that's it folks. CP get the average going rate to raise the child. If you can't do it on that budget better. NCP pay the average going rate to raise the child if you can't afford it get a better job. The child's wants can be meet by both parents as they have the means and desire.

Keep in mind these rates would vary depending on the area in where you live.
AHH the first proble CP moves to a higher living area. TO BAD if you can't afford the cost of living in a new area don't move. The NCP pays the average of the county the orginal custody agreement was made. NCP has more kids, takes a lower paying job, ect blah blah blah, TO BAD the cost of raising your child did not decrease, work more eat less.

End of story. No more court battles over support.

 

[Antigone*]

So why does this matter to you?

 

[mistoffolees]

The only problem with that is that it assumes that every child is the same and every set of parents is the same.

I make a very good income. Why should my child support be the same as someone who is struggling to feed his family?

More importantly, what if I were making $300,000 per year and my ex wasn't working. She could find a job, but couldn't do better than minimum wage. My child had grown up with a lifestyle consistent with my income. By your formula, the child would suffer (drastic reduction in lifestyle) and my ex would suffer - being forced to try to give the child things on a minimal support payment.

 

[ra04152010]

reply

A. It matters because I am a parent.

B. The average figure is to supply the NEEDS of a child. It does not matter if you make a 50 dollars or 5 million children still have the same basic needs (unless medical condition). You are responsible for providing for half those needs. Regardless of your situation your child's need must be met, find a way to do it. And no your child would not suffer a lower standard of living unless you let them. Once you provide NCP with the money for their needs your more than welcome to take care of their wants, improve or maintain their life syle. This system only keeps on parent from contributed most or all while the other floods the court system with excuses and modifications. A child's needs must be meet NO EXCUSE.

 

[mistoffolees]

AB. The average figure is to supply the NEEDS of a child. It does not matter if you make a 50 dollars or 5 million children still have the same basic needs (unless medical condition). You are responsible for providing for half those needs. Regardless of your situation your child's need must be met, find a way to do it. And no your child would not suffer a lower standard of living unless you let them. Once you provide NCP with the money for their needs your more than welcome to take care of their wants, improve or maintain their life syle. This system only keeps on parent from contributed most or all while the other floods the court system with excuses and modifications. A child's needs must be meet NO EXCUSE.

Sure. Let's dictate that all children are entitled to live at the poverty level. And that's what would happen (do you read any of the posts here where parents fight about every little thing and refuse to pay one penny more than they're legally required to pay? Not all parents, but lots of them).

Sheesh.

 

[ra04152010]

That's the point

That's the whole point. If it were the law that each must pay half of what it takes to maintain a child the child would not be in poverty. Their needs would be provided for. It would mean less children in poverty because mom and dad would have to stop using excuses and stalling with modifications. They would have to get a job or three, sell the boat, turn off the HBO, skip the pack of smokes whatever it took to meet the childs needs. Both parents would have to do this.Neither parent gets to work under the table or live off their new partner getting out of support. It's equal. It takes both to make the child and it takes both to support.

 

[mistoffolees]

That's the whole point. If it were the law that each must pay half of what it takes to maintain a child the child would not be in poverty. Their needs would be provided for. It would mean less children in poverty because mom and dad would have to stop using excuses and stalling with modifications. They would have to get a job or three, sell the boat, turn off the HBO, skip the pack of smokes whatever it took to meet the childs needs. Both parents would have to do this.Neither parent gets to work under the table or live off their new partner getting out of support. It's equal. It takes both to make the child and it takes both to support.

I didn't say they would be in poverty. I said that they would be 'at the poverty level' - which is what you're proposing. You're proposing that as long as their minimum needs are met, that should be OK. That's what the poverty level is.

Let me guess, you're NCP and are upset that you have to pay a significant portion of your income in support, right?

 

[Antigone*]

I didn't say they would be in poverty. I said that they would be 'at the poverty level' - which is what you're proposing. You're proposing that as long as their minimum needs are met, that should be OK. That's what the poverty level is.

Let me guess, you're NCP and are upset that you have to pay a significant portion of your income in support, right?

A drink at the bar later says that you are right

 

[hambirg]

You can't be serious? First, children have other needs besides monetary ones. They have social and emotional needs too. Why should the CP be the main provider of those things, while the NCP is off the hook? Why is any one particular child delegated to live at the basic needs level, when possibly either parent could provide more? At least in my state there are tables based on parental income as to what support should be. . .why should a child with a NCP with a substantial income be forced to live at a subsistence level? And btw. . ."basic needs" mean very different things to different people. So who gets to decide? It's pretty simple. . .if you don't want to provide for a child, then don't have children.

ETA-Can I get in on this drink thing? I need one.

 

[nextwife]

Additionally, how would this possibly work if the parents live in very different counties, with very different costs to raise a child? Say NCP lives in rural Wisconsin where the living and housing costs are fairly low, and CP lives in Manhattan? Does dad pay CS based on Mom's costs of living when his income reflects wages and costs that are way lower?

Can't work.

 

[ra04152010]

Your not getting it!!!

Yes I am the NCP I have two children and I am ordered to pay LESS than the 768.00 per month I am purposing I should have to pay. I pay more and provide more than court ordered for my children. Which is what concerned and caring parents do and will continue to do regardless of a law. I want to provide for not only their needs but as many of their wants and extras as I can. What I am purposing is for thoes who don't and won't. No more hiding income so the kids don't get any, no more I'm over qualified for the jobs avaiable. You have to provide for the needs of your children first, regardless of your circumstances. How many lame excuses do you see on here on a children were being meet. Wouldn't it be nice to know that at least thoes children's needs were being meet.

And yes children do need more types of support than just money. However, all the love in the world does not fill up an empty stomach.

 

[Proserpina]

Someone didn't think this out too well...

 

[Antigone*]

Yes I am the NCP I have two children and I am ordered to pay LESS than the 768.00 per month I am purposing I should have to pay. I pay more and provide more than court ordered for my children. Which is what concerned and caring parents do and will continue to do regardless of a law. I want to provide for not only their needs but as many of their wants and extras as I can. What I am purposing is for thoes who don't and won't. No more hiding income so the kids don't get any, no more I'm over qualified for the jobs avaiable. You have to provide for the needs of your children first, regardless of your circumstances. How many lame excuses do you see on here on a children were being meet. Wouldn't it be nice to know that at least thoes children's needs were being meet.

And yes children do need more types of support than just money. However, all the love in the world does not fill up an empty stomach.

Glad to hear you are supporting your children over and above the court ordered amount.

I agree all the deadbeats should pay their share. Now, are we done here yet I need to go buy Misto a drink

 

[Astrolink]

I like the idea of child support insurance. The premium would be mostly calculated by the combined income of the 2 parties and the age of the children.

Like home or car insurance, if you don't use it, you don't get it back. But, you have piece of mind that you are covered in a disaster....er.....divorce.

 

[CourtClerk]

1.Each county would need to figure the average cost to raise a child.

What happens when you have an above average child (like I do?)