Guest Column: Lost Job? What About Child Support?
Have your own psycho ex? Get a FREE Report on "Why Co-Parenting Doesn't Work", or learn how to win child custody with a custody coach.
With the economy in the tank, a number of states are being forced to address the issue of child support when the NCP (non-custodial parent) has lost their income.
Back in the old days, it was easy to label any man who lost his job as a “Deadbeat Dad,” assume he was deliberately unemployed so that he could get out of child support, impute his income anyway, and keep the federal CS-matching pipeline open. Men who lost their jobs remained current on their child support by living in poverty, sleeping on couches and blow-up beds because they could no longer afford housing, and borrowing from parents, friends, and anyone else who would loan them money; just to keep themselves out of jail while supplementing the lifestyle of a freeloading ex — all “in the best interests of the children,” of course.
Now that job-loss is front page news; now that it’s somewhat politically incorrect to be so heartless; now that layoffs are happening to so many in the mainstream that the “deadbeat” label seems ludicrous, not to mention implausible… state legislators find themselves wringing their hands over how to continue to squeeze at least a little bit of blood from the proverbial stone.
Keep in mind that before the reality of the recession hit, a man who lost his job could petition for a modification of child support to match his new (lack of) income… but now that unemployment has more than doubled, court dockets are being bombarded, child support enforcement agencies are clogged with new cases - states are looking for ways to streamline the process while still optimizing their precious income source.
Many pundits are now clamoring for even MORE government oversight of the child support operation because — so the claim goes — if fathers don’t support their children, then the state will be forced to provide for them instead, via welfare and other entitlement programs.
It’s a false dichotomy.
There is another option. An option that restores children to BOTH parents. An option that teaches children the values of responsibility, hard work, and integrity. An option that instantly slices in half the odds that any child will be forced into poverty. An option that cuts wasteful government intrusion. An option so obvious, it still truly astounds me that nobody has brought it out in the mainstream.
Therefore, I present it here. It is simply this:
ANY parent, male or female, can be assumed to be competent to parent their children. ANY parent, male or female, can be assumed to be competent to provide for their children.
Therefore, in divorce, the de facto presumption — barring serious, proven, demonstrated endangerment or neglect — is that both parents shall have joint custody, both parents shall have 50/50 access, and both parents shall contribute 50% to the children’s support. Each parent will provide for and care for the children during the 50% of the time that the children are with them. No money will change hands, because neither parent will expect anyone else to meet their personal obligation and responsibility for their children. Any parent who would not step up to their obligation to provide for and care for their children during their 50% of the time would then be held in contempt of their order.
Now I know — I know — there will be parents who abuse this solution. They will play silly games; games with clothing, with children’s personal effects, with not taking kids to the doctor during their parenting time… etc. Guess what? The kind of parent who would do that to their child will do that to their child under any system, including the one that we currently use. While it’s true that there is nothing about the “True 50/50 Possession and Provision Plan” (TFPP) that prevents parents from being jerks with their kids, there is nothing about it that makes it any easier for parents to be jerks with their kids, either.
But, if states are looking to save themselves some money during these tough economic times, they could count up the cost of the office of child support enforcement, which would go away; and the cost of protracted custody battles, which would go away; and the immeasurable cost of supporting broken/damaged children who dropped out of school, began using drugs, broke the law, or had illegitimate children of their own as a result of the high-conflict divorce cartel that we currently employ.
If both parents are contributing equally to providing for their children, then the job loss of one parent would only have half the impact that it currently does. Indeed, even the probability of job loss is spread between two wage-earners, thus reducing risk. In addition, children learn that ALL adults are accountable for the choices that they make; ALL adults are responsible for the care of themselves and those they bring into the world; ALL adults are expected to work hard and produce something in this world. Who wouldn’t want to live in a society where children learned these values by example?
The TFPP plan makes perfect sense to me. Does it to you?
~jb
———-
About JB:
Collaborative Divorce Coach, Mediator, Family Mediator, Parent Coordinator, Communications Coach, Facilitator, Public Speaker, Instructor, Group Discussion Leader, Cognitive Psychology Aficionado, Life Management Training Assistant…. Absolutely passionate about protecting children from the ravages of divorce! Also — coaches, teaches, and consults in the online world Second Life as avatar Andi Martinsyde, at Reliable Divorce Consultants.
See all my blog posts at: thedivorcecoach-am.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:06 am
In an economic crisis such as this, I still feel somehow lucky. I graduated, I’m still employed, and I don’t have children to think of taking care of. I’m also glad my parents are still together or else they’d have to fight for custody and spend even more over stuff. I feel blessed. Then again, if I were in that kind of situation then the TFPP doesn’t sound so bad. It does make a lot of sense, after all. Not total complete sense, but a lot of.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I agree completely. I am offended at the stereotypical assumption that women are the only caretakers in a set of parents, and that women need to be supported by a man’s check. What is that teaching the kids involved? BM’s who mooch off their parents and teach the kids the finer points of irresponsibility and dependence on others is unbelievable to me.
However, many women have learned that playing the helpless female is rewarded heavily, especially in family court, so I see no end to it soon.
If the kids really were the most important consideration, the parents would work together to make sure the kids were taken care of, especially in economically stressful situations, not one of them squeezing the other for more money, resources be damned.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Gonna have to ask a question which may be unpopular here. But, let me preface it….I’m ALL for 50/50 custody and 50/50 financial responsibility, and I agree some women either act the part for (or naturally get through the system) some “woe-is-me-I’m-female-and-make-less-money-than-him” verdict, but what if a woman and good mother does enjoy 50/50 custody, yet makes less than the father. Should the children suffer her lack of income? I think there does need to be some kind of balance (read: child support) to equal out the difference in incomes. Where the system will CONTINUE to fail will be the montoring of how the money is spent. My brother-in-law is an AVP for a multi-national company. That doesn’t make him wealthy, but he surely makes more than his bimbo former hair stylist ex-wife (she married a service man, so they live off his income and my brother-in-law’s $60,000 contribution to the household). Shall the government now also be household accountants?
You guys are the experts. because you’fe living it everyday…..so what do you say about this question?
February 27th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
“Should the children suffer her lack of income? I think there does need to be some kind of balance (read: child support) to equal out the difference in incomes.”
I think that is what alimony is for — to balance the households and compensate the person who sacrificed career and income advancement to raise the children during the marriage. But alimony is an outdated concept, a relic from the days when the man went to work and the woman stayed home every day. Those days are long gone — most women have careers and jobs now.
I can understand your position regarding “equalizing” the lifestyles of the households. In fact, many states’ family codes specifically state the that purpose of child support is to equalize the standard of living in two households because, in theory, that is best for kids.
Personally, I don’t buy it. All this system does is provide an incentive for the high earner who resents sending money to his ex to earn less, while simultaneously providing an incentive to the custodial parent to earn as little as possible, with the additional incentive of minimizing the child time share for the other parent. I’ve experienced this very phenomenon with my PEG. It is system fraught with problems and opportunities for abuse, as many NCPs would attest.
Child support, if we must have it, should be to provide for the BASIC needs of a child: food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. It should not be to provide a certain lifestyle or standard of living.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
To Witness:
I don’t agree. There’s no reason the households should be ‘equalled’. If there is a difference in income, then the kids will have more at one house than another. That’s just life. You also have situations where Dad works hard for his money, and Mom doesn’t work because she has remarried and has a husband that provides for her and the kids. Like in my case, my husband and I work hard to provide a nice house for our family. His ex doesn’t work, but her husband makes a good enough living so that they can afford multiple cars and a house bigger than ours on a large plot of land, while we have only one car. Our house is nice and big, but smaller than hers. BUT, since her income is zero, should we have to pay her extra in a 50/50 situation?
To the original author:
Then there are the cases (like mine) where my step-kids live over an hour and a half one way from us due to the mother’s move away (courts didn’t care). There’s no way we could have the kids 50% of the time. We even went to court asking for more time in the summer and were denied. So 50/50 would definitely be out of the case. What do you propose in those cases?
February 27th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
[...] bookmarks tagged parenting Shared Parenting in Tough Economic Times | The Psy… saved by 2 others NiwaAMV bookmarked on 02/27/09 | [...]
February 28th, 2009 at 12:03 am
“Should the children suffer her lack of income? I think there does need to be some kind of balance (read: child support) to equal out the difference in incomes.”
I agree with a lot of what Germania has said, and what I know LM is writing, as I type my own comment (we are such geeks, sitting next to each other on the computer on a Friday night after watching a movie, lol), but to put it in my own words:
First off, if a couple is still married, what happens when one spouse loses their job? Does some government agency step in to make sure the kids continue to have the same lifestyle? Hell no, unemployment barely gets you by and the family has to adjust, welcome to the real world.
In a divorce, the same thing should be expected. If the Mother doesn’t make as much as the Father she should work to get a better job, period. Same for the Father. Children don’t care how much money their parents have, they want to be loved and cared for. The best interests of the children should be making sure both parents are in a position to provide for the children, and if a parent can’t care for them because they can’t afford the children, then the other spouse should have custody until such time as the other parent can support them. If financial support is so important to children, for the life of me I can’t figure out why the kids don’t go to the parent that makes the most money. The problem is this issue isn’t about what’s best for the kids, it’s what’s best for the states pockets, they only get funding if they are collecting support, so they give the kids to Mothers who traditionally make less due to staying home. Child support = state support. No child needs $30,000 a month to live, but we see child support handed down for ridiculous amounts all the time.
It is not the Father’s responsibility to make sure the Mother can pay her bills, nor the reverse. The reality is, no man or woman should be having children unless they can raise them, financially, AND emotionally, on their own, because you never know what is going to happen.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Witness, a dose of random thoughts for you…
At what point is it the responsibility of the mother to improve her lot in life and not be “supported” by a husband that she unilaterally decided to leave?
The children aren’t suffering due to her lack of income… in a 50/50 situation, the children have equal access to ALL of the income.
If, as many people in society seem to believe… money is the most important issue for children post divorce… and “child support” money is “in the best interests of the children” - how come the higher wage earner isn’t given primary custodianship?
When you offer financial incentives for divorce (via child support and alimony) - what motivation does the lower wage earner have to improve their income when someone else is “ordered by the court” to send her money? Witness - would you turn away court-ordered tax-free income if given the opportunity to obtain it? Would you work a second job or 60-hours per week or work a part-time job when your income supplement brings you up to a full-time job at the expense of someone else’s hard work?
If the children are “entitled” to the “same standard of living post-divorce” (with which I completely disagree) - why are there no government programs to assist people in staying married? Why are there no government programs that make it more difficult to get a divorce instead of implementing unilateral, no-fault divorce, especially when it makes it easier for the lower wage-earner to get steady income for years to come? Is it any wonder that women (typically the lower wage-earner) initiate more than 70% of divorces today?
How come there are so many government funded programs (more than $4-billion annually) that pour into domestic violence programs which aid only women and guide them in using the most underhanded tactics (including false accusations, ex-parte restraining orders) which serve to get the father out of the house, out of his children’s lives indefinitely, and essentially relegate him to ATM status in his kids’ lives?
How come the government doesn’t order parents to spend “X” amount of dollars on their children when they’re married, but do so when they’re divorced? When things get tight or people lose their job, families make adjustments, spend less, do without things. In a divorce situation, when the same thing happens, men oftentimes can’t get downward modifications and end up homeless or in jail.
The bottom line is this, post-divorce, there are two households, not one. You live within your means. Neither an ex-spouse nor the children are “entitled to the same standard of living as when the parents were together” because - THE PARENTS ARE NOT TOGETHER ANYMORE! There is a dramatic increase in the overall expenses to support separate households on the same income (less all of the divorce and custody debt) to make that happen.
There are so many more thoughts and circumstances on this topic that I could type non-stop for days. Thought-provoking question and one with lots of answers that are far more helpful to children and families than re-distributing the household wealth by force of “law” and giving lower wage-earners (most often - the woman) a financial incentive to end the marriage, take the kids, while at the same time offering a disincentive to improve their educational and/or employment situation… nor give them the responsibility for living within their means.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:13 am
I find this to be a great solution. In fact, this is what I presented to my ex husband when we divorced four years ago. It hurt me too much to see how sad my children were and how much they were hurting when they were only seeing their dad every other weekend and one day a week (because I had them at first, and he was paying me child support). Fortunately, if one of us is having a harder time financially, the other one covers whatever is needed. We both buy them school clothes, school supplies, shoes, clothes, and whatever else is needed.. and we both pay for all extra curricular activities (3 children X 2 extras each) and we don’t “keep tabs”. I think we are in a minority though..
February 28th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Good for you and your ex-husband, Jessica. A breath of fresh air - your story!
February 28th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
50/50 is exactly what my husband and his ex do. Thankfully they were never married, SD is a product of BM purposely (she lied about taking birth control and poked holes in condoms with a needle) getting pregnant in order to “keep him” when she found out he was going to break up with her soon (they had only been together around a month). Anyway, we have SD every other week, and we are in charge of paying for things when she is with us, BM is in charge of that when she’s with her. She gets $0 money (although she has tried). We paid for the Halloween costume we picked out, and if she wanted one too she paid for hers. We haven’t reached the extra curricular activities thing yet, but when we do things will be split. The only thing that is not equal is SD is on my insurance, and we pay for her medical bills because BM can’t be trusted to do so (we found this out after getting a call from the dr. office about a bill). Although my husband and his family definitely do more (free day care and watching SD whenever BM decides she needs a “break” during her week), according to the court papers, it’s 50/50. Point being, we ARE doing what’s best for SD. She does get time with both parents, she knows both parents love her. If BM needed something for SD she knows she can (and has) come to us requesting things specifically, such as clothes, diapers and formula (when SD used them), shoes, etc. She has asked for money before and we told her no. She said it was for her electric bill, we said if she can’t afford electric then give SD to us till she can, it’s not our fault she would rather buy shoes than electricity. I get so sick of court systems having the “best interest of the children” in mind and saying “Dad you only get to see your kid roughly 6 days a month, YET you have to pay mom for time with kids YOU don’t get”. Best interest of the child would be TIME SPENT WITH BOTH PARENTS!!! The kids usually don’t even see that money, they only understand that they don’t get to see daddy. I think it should be required that each family tries 50/50 for one year, if either party does not follow, then they should be found in contempt of court THEN be forced to pay child support or do community service (if they are unemployed) to pay the “debt” the state is paying for the kids. This is a sad state of the world we live in and our children are NOT getting better, they are NOT being raised with morals and self respect. I am a counselor in the school system and most of the problems I see from kids are formed at home and acted out at school. It’s hard enough for our kids to grow up without both parents in one home, but to make it worse by telling them BECAUSE they don’t live together anymore they can’t see one parent as much is ludacris. I agree with you 100% JB and Mister M….50/50 custody is the best option all around!!
February 28th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Amen to this! I have watched my spouse go through absolute financial hell while his ex lives a fine life with several vacations each year, works very part time (even though she has a master’s degree and teenaged children who do not need her at home all the time) because the system allows people like this to manipulate it. Meanwhile, I work full time, own a small business which provides part time income, receive no child support, no alimony, have 50/50 custody because I believe if you’re capable and able to support yourself, you should be required to. My ex and I didn’t need a judge to tell us that. I don’t get many vacations and I’ve worked my ass off to keep my head above water.
Have I got a chip on my shoulder? Hell, yeah. And I am very vocal about it.
I’ve been watching as people lose their jobs and have been thinking similar thoughts to those expressed here. My heart goes out to all men (and women) are losing their jobs, their livlihoods and worst of all, their relationships with their kids through no fault of their own.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Thanks for the kind words Mister M - I’ve enjoyed reading your blog for some time now and empathizing with your’s and DW’s situation. My boyfriend has a daughter with someone very similar to your PEW, and I can relate to so much of what the two of you say. Like you’ve mentioned before, so many of these stories are similar.
We have just recently, after going through hell, finally gotten his ex to “allow” him to have his daughter 6 consecutive days, and then she has her for 8 consecutive days; much better than every other weekend, and once a week for a few hours! However, there are many stipulations that he agreed to, and one of them was that his child support would not change. Of course, he agreed - because all he wants is more time with his daughter!
March 1st, 2009 at 12:14 am
Yeah, but the beauty of that is… once he’s established a “status quo” and a demonstration that the arrangement is working… he can petition for the change in custody and a modification of child support.
Just another example of a woman extorting the ex-husband and using the child as ransom. “Pay me money and I’ll allow you to see the child more.”
It’s a shame the court never admits that this is exactly what it is.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Well hell I have sat on both sides of the fence. My husband has a psycho ex and I have a psycho ex. Its actually how and why we started talking to each other. You have to have someone to share your war stories with especially when your ex really is a psycho.
I think the mistake most of us make when we get divorced is that we ASSUME that the ex will be a different person after the separation because kids are involved. We forget that the issues they had when we left them are still very much issues during the divorce. They do not care about the kids.
I don’t like people whining about child support. I don’t because I only had my ex paying $300 a month in support, I did my whole thing pro se, and part of that agreement was that he would make the monthly payments on his STUDENT LOANS (my name was on them but that is another issue), and that he would joint parent our daughters. He made 2400 amonth, I made 1800 a month, all after taxes. He could not share physical custody (don’t know why he just said he couldn’t do that and had a long list of reasons), and complained bitterly that I was wasting his $300 a month child support.
You try paying a full-time childcare bill of $700 a month ($150 a week) for a SAFE care center, and then another $60 a week for before/aftercare for a schoolage child, and then come and talk to me about feeling used, abused and beaten down. All the while the bartard had the NERVE to whine about HIM not having any money!
You know if I had played by other rules, I would have gone for alimony. Instead I just wanted to be no longer married to him, no longer wanted to have to deal with his “issues”, his one after another expensive crisis, his constant need to play victim. Lord I was to the point that I could not even look at him without getting sick to my stomach literally. I just needed to be away from him. The kids however, they loved him. They did not ask to be born to us, they sure as hey did not ask for the divorce.
I just wanted him to grow up and be their dad. If he couldn’t share the responsibility of taking care of them, then at least come and spend the weekends with them. But NO. So every other weekend. NO. Do you know what that good for nothing baby did? He drove them over 6 hours away and dumped them at his grandmother’s house. Every damn time he was supposed to be just hanging out with them.
He whined that he paid too much in child support, and he was not giving me that whopping $300 a month to live “high on the hog”! This was in 1996/97 okay! So he stopped paying child support. That is not even the beginning of it, it is just on this one issue. He wanted me to get a babysitter who would charge less to watch our youngest daughter, I refused because I was paranoid about letting just anyone watch my daughters. I had her in Kindercare. So I told him that if he thought I was living “high on the hog” then he could just pay our youngest daycare bill directly. He went through the ROOF!
Maybe I am a little overprotective, but when you divorce with children there are many issues that come into play. One, you don’t want to hook up with some man that will rape and murder your children, and two you don’t want to use any childcare provider without a background check and state health department check.
Anyway so I ended up turning the whole thing over to the state, and they recalculated his child support to $613 a month. And then his mom and grandmother who didn’t think he should be paying any child support at all since I divorced him, proceeded to make my life a living hell.
I totally agree that all custody should be joint! As a mother who does not like being the Martyr, I can assure you that it is the ideal situation for your kids, and for the parents. You should share responsibility for them. When they are sick, you take turns staying home from work with them. When there is a problem in school or a doctor’s appointment, you take turns. You split the cost of their clothes and school supplies. You split the cost of their food, shelter, utilities (YES KIDS SHOULD HAVE CABLE), and childcare. Split the cost of school lunches, transportation expenses. And SPLIT TIME with them. Equally.
If there is an income disadvantage then percentage base it. But don’t be stupid about it either. My ex was an ass to put it mildly. He did not think this way. He thought that with joint custody it meant he should not have to pay child support and would make decisions regarding them. For REAL? He was 30 when we divorced. Our oldest had a list of supplies the school handed out each year, he didn’t think she needed everything on the list, and so went out and bought her what he thought she needed.
He got her a woman’s hand me down coat for winter, it would have been fine, except she was and is a tiny little thing and at 6 the coat was way way too large. So I had to go buy her a coat. He didn’t think she needed tennis shoes twice a year, apparently her feet should stop growing because he said so.
He was beyond petty and just blatantly stupid. Today, well he still is. I don’t know how he made it for so long in the Army, but he is now 42 lives at home with his grandparents, and has been going to school for over a decade. He got out of the Army on a disability, he got shinsplints. He thinks women just don’t understand him. No, women who stayed away from him did so because they were smart. I was 17 when I met him, didn’t know any better.
And his daughters call him a big kid. My husband, (yes I married that wonderful man I met way back then) took up the thankless role of being a dad to a couple of kids that were badly used by their dad’s family to get back at me. He is teaching the oldest to drive, getting her her first car, he taught the other to ride her first bike way back when, but now he is just trying to see her through her teens.
I swear to you had it not been for my husband, I would have sworn off all men because my ex really ran me through the ringer. I didn’t think it was all men that were messed up, I had just decided that when it came to finding a good one, I wasn’t any good at it.
Joint parenting is the absolute ideal situation for kids. I still believe very much that we would not have teen pregnancy rates, juvenile crime rates, and so many murdered and missing kids, if BOTH PARENTS would get their heads out of their rears just long enough to raise their kids together.
It should not be used as a way to CONTROL the life of the other parent, as my ex was want to do, it should not be done to nickel and dime the other parent to death, it put me into chapter 7, it should be done because it is in the best interests of the kids to do so. Not keep someone from paying child support, it took two to make the child/ren it takes TWO to support them.
Now I had mentioned earlier that my hubby was also going through a divorce. We went through the ringer with his psycho ex, and I bet you anything she can beat your psycho ex! She was bizarre and stopped at nothing to keep him from seeing their daughter. Sexual abuse allegations, physical abuse allegations, one thing after another. The end result was that he cut that bond he had with his daughter when she was 4, and it was a BOND, and to this day refuses to do visitations with her because he lives in fear of what his ex will do next. He pays child support for 4 more years, provides health insurance for her (even though the psycho beotch gets state medicaid), maintains a life insurance policy so that she will get a windfall if he dies, and goes on with his life.
The other side to this issue that needs to be addressed are the spouses who marry men or women with children. You marry into the package, but you need to get over your insecurities and not INTERFERE in any way with what goes on between your man and his ex. You do not badmouth her or him, you do not whine because you can’t have your new car because he or she pays child support, you do not try to turn the kids against the parent receiving the child support, keep your nose out of it, suck it up, and stay in the relationship because you love the man or woman.
You are a step parent, and ideally, that means you get to be the fun auntie, because the children already have a mommy and daddy who love them. You stay neutral, be supportive of your lover, but keep an open mind.
Lord that was a lot wasn’t it? I hope it helps though?!?
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Jessica you and your ex are role models for everyone to follow. Your children because you and your ex never stopped parenting are less likely to get pregnant while under the age of 18, they are more likely to obtain a college degree, they are less likely to be truant from school, they are less likely to commit crime, join gangs, bully classmates, beat up on teachers, do drugs, abuse their bodies, get sexually abused by a predator, run away from home and the list goes on…
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 am
“If the Mother doesn’t make as much as the Father she should work to get a better job, period. Same for the Father.”
Amen, and exactly. Expecting one parent (usually the father) to pick up slack for the other (usually the mother) builds a nice platform for abusing the system, and hell, the family court system is abused enough already. Whether I make minimum wage or if I make a million dollars, it still only costs a certain amount of money to make sure the kids are fed, have clothes, and have shelter. I agree that if the kids have more at one house than the other, that is simply life.
March 4th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
[...] If you’re new here, you may want to get updates for FREE by Email or RSS or follow us on Twitter. Thanks for visiting!It is with much trepidation I write this post… and unbelievably coincidental on the heels of our recent guest post: Job Loss? What About Child Support? [...]
March 6th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Hard to imagine I was laid-off not 4-days after JB’s guest post.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:39 am
If the parents were still together and the father lost his job…wouldn’t the kids still suffer? So would the wife. Its reality…it’s life. life is hard!
March 15th, 2009 at 3:47 am
[...] Oh, well. It was rather ironic given that I had only just uploaded a guest post on the topic of child support issues during a layoff a day or so before it [...]
March 17th, 2009 at 10:05 am
[...] Guest Column: Lost Job? What About Child Support? [...]
June 12th, 2009 at 11:47 am
I have sole custody of my son. My husband was giving us $624 a month child support which stopped when he lost his job in Nov 08. He was also supposed to split childcare, health expenses 50/50. Needless to say there is no excess money. Hi sunemployment barely covers his rent and basics. So
who suffers in this case? Me and my son.
As the govt is so busy bailing out homeowner, banks et all, wouldnt it be so obvious to them to add financial assistance in such a case as mine.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:59 am
With all due respect, Pati… your husband is suffering, too.
That’s the problem with many people’s mindset. I don’t say this to be combative… but while you are complaining about how you and your son are suffering, you conveniently leave out the fact that your husband lost his job and is suffering as a result.
Many of us who can look at this from all sides are also wondering how he is getting by. How about you?
2 people are hurt by the job loss… your son and your husband. After all, isn’t child support supposed to be for the child?
You lost $624/month in free income off of the hard work of your ex. You do nothing for that incomem and pay no taxes on it. Your husband lost, from where I’m sitting… probably a few thousand or more per month.
I ask you… who is suffering the most here?
June 12th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
you miss my point. what i’m suggesting is govt aid for child support. I’m compassionate towards my husbands situation. In fact a little too.
I work but need the extra money to pay for childcare, health insurance and clothing and shoes for my son.
The government is bailing out fat cats left and right. What about the middle class who make too much money for welfare or food stamps.
June 12th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I get one of your points, regarding all of the bailouts. But you keep talking about you and your son and your loss.
Your husband needs the money, too… to pay for all of those same things.
June 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I’m not talking about loss. I’m talking about survival.
Good thing I can make pasta 150 ways.
June 12th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
pati, what would you do if your husband (not your ex, someone you were currently married to) lost his job and instead of $1200 every two weeks, you were making $640? You still have kids, you still have bills, you still have to manage health care and expenses. Do you expect the gummint to come in and pay the rest of your expenses for you? Or do you get a job, or a second job if you’re already working, to make the family budget work? Every single day in this country, hundreds if not thousands of people are losing their jobs and facing the inability to pay all of their bills, and they’re all finding ways to manage it. My husband and I did for 9 months last year, with two kids (not my bio kids, btw), a mortgage, car payments, etc. Did we call my husband’s ex-wife, who has never paid a single penny in support, and tell her she needed to pony up? No, we managed. Because that’s what you do. Those children are our responsibility, as your son is yours.
Your family situation is worse. You and your ex-husband are supporting a child and TWO households. In order for your son’s father to provide for his child, he needs to be in a stable environment, to look for work, to be able to feed and take care of himself, to have a place to live. To say in any forum that YOU are suffering because your ex-husband lost HIS job, because the $600 a month that you have never done a damn thing to earn just disappeared, is short-sighted, selfish and incredibly asinine. No one can survive on unemployment alone. A family works together to make ends meet. For you to sit here and complain that your gravy train ended while your ex could conceivably lose his home makes me sick to my stomach.
YOU are responsible for the wellbeing of your child, regardless of whether his father is in a position to uphold his financial obligations at this time. YOU are not entitled to a penny of your ex-husband’s money; that CS is for your son. When he is unable to temporarily pay because of a job loss, as the child’s mother, it is YOUR JOB to fill in the gaps, to provide the best you can, and not look to anyone else for hand-outs. For god’s sake, woman, just do it already. YOU are not suffering; your son is. YOU are an adult, and YOU can do something, in fact many things, to mitigate these unfortunate circumstances. Get on it.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Seriously? You are actually suggesting that on top of the government’s current ludicrous bailouts, they should allocate funds because YOU aren’t receiving YOUR child support?
Yeah, your posts reek of compassion. And selfishness and bitterness and incredible arrogance.
Ever think about getting a 2nd job? Or cutting back on your expenses? I can pretty much figure out his former income based on the amount you stated, so I’m sure he’s lost much more than YOU have. I know, why don’t you go get knocked up by another man, then you’ll have two child support checks every month. Maybe someday, you can quit working all together.
Your ex husband owes YOU nothing. You were equally responsible for having the child, and you are equally responsible for supporting that child. Women like you make my blood boil…you think just because you can reproduce, the world owes you something. GET A JOB.
And regarding the other posts about alimony and child support being necessary to “equal the households…” You guys need to check statistics. Women are earning more than ever now days, and many out-earn their male partners. Long gone are the days where most women aren’t employed and solely rely on a husband. Yet, even with equal or greater salaries, women still expect child support, even when the father is unemployed.
Unreal.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Oh, and completely agree with this:
Child support, if we must have it, should be to provide for the BASIC needs of a child: food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. It should not be to provide a certain lifestyle or standard of living.
And in that vein, those things should NOT increase, just because the ex husband/boyfriend gets a pay increase. Cost of living increases, sure. But child support being increased 20% and more just because a man gets a better job? That doesn’t mean that food, clothes, etc. suddenly rose in price.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Unfortunately, Kelly… the money-grubbing thieves who conceived of today’s child support guideline calculations had this ingenious plan (for the courts and the state governments and and and)… to make child support be about “similar lifestyle to which the children could expect had the parents stayed together.”
Except… that the parents didn’t stay together and the children can’t possibly have an expectation, with two households now needing to be maintained, of having a “similar lifestyle.” It’s just not possible.
And of course, the income shares model is predicated on results of “consumer spending surveys.” We’ve talked about this before in other posts.
Care to guess which gender controls over 80% of household spending? If you guessed “female” - you would be correct. So, the phantom calculation is based on people who are trying to keep up with their neighbors… and if you look at today’s economy, you can guess why most intelligent people know that child support guidelines are clearly out of touch with reality.
You want a “child support bailout?” Start with eliminating the current system. Good luck to all of us with that.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Does anyone here know if it’s the “standard” for the man to pay the woman child support in a 50/50 custody arrangement? Or does the CS become a moot point since the kids are equally cared for and each parent has equal time?
We would love 50/50 custody, we currently have the EOW standard deal. But I have no idea how the CS would be impacted by that.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
In income-shares model states… 50/50 custody doesn’t matter. Unless the incomes are equal (or so close it doesn’t really matter) - the higher income earner will always be paying the lower income earner “child support.”
I know. I’ve lived it.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“The other side to this issue that needs to be addressed are the spouses who marry men or women with children. You marry into the package, but you need to get over your insecurities and not INTERFERE in any way with what goes on between your man and his ex. ”
This is a load of crap!!! I married my husband because I loved him. I didn’t marry a ‘dysfunctional’ package consisting of a kid who with multiple behavorial problems and a ex-wife who is an expert at playing the victim card and tried to squeeze him for every dime and take advantage of him at every opportunity. This has nothing to do with me (the new spouse) having “insecurities” and everything to do with being practical enough to try to bring some sanity and reduced drama to both of our lives and refusing to let some bitter ex spouse continue to manipulate him for decades just becuase he had the unfortunate experience of knocking her up.
I mean, give me a break. You don’t marry into a dysfunctional situation and then live with the “status quo” just because it existed for several years before I came along. You sound like you were the bitter ex-wife who resents the ex-husband from re-marrying and having a life with someone new. Well guess what, you are divorced and the doesn’t entitle you to an 18 year ride on the gravy train and 18 year prison sentence for the ex-husband to be manipulated by you and your kids.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
my fiance that I currently live with pays has ex-wife 1500.00 per month and only has a bring home of 1500.00 after he pays his child support. We would be greatful if all he had to pay for his two kids was 700.00 per month!!
And no he is not behind!! This is almost unheard of in
most cases and the sad part is that my ex owes me thousands
in back owed child support and won’t pay even though he
was only ordered to pay 298.00 per month on two kids.
What a joke!