Child custody laws

[Martrae]

My cousin had to resort to garnishing her ex's wages to get child support. He then talked his boss into paying him under the table to avoid the court order.

[araby]

Araby you make a very good point on Child Support, but the one of the main flaws I really saw was the marriage after child support begins part. Child Support is paid to support the raising of the child. Based on both the fathers and mothers income they figure out a set amount. Now I don't see the point in whether or not either get married on raising or lowering the amount paid. example:::>

Father & Mother get a divorse. Mother has custody and is single. Father re-marries and now has more income... should he start paying more child support since his household income went up? Hell no. This works Vice Versa also.

This money is for raising a child between the mother and father. Whomever they marry or who they are seeing/living with should never make a difference. The only time where household income comes into effect is when the custodial parent signs up for Title-19, WIC, and other Government/State Programs.

I believe the system is screwed but is getting better if you are a dad. You will have a hell of a better chance now than you would have 15 years ago. The costs of raising a child are high and that's why support is high, yes you are paying part of the custodial parents bills, but if the custodial parent can use the money to pay the extra for utilities (heat in the winter), water, rent/mortgage(for a better location), food(real food not just Great Value Mac 'n' Cheese every night), not to mention everything else a kid gets, etc to give your child a better environment to live in, so be it.

Just my 2 cents.

OH MY GOD I just spent like twenty minutes on typing out something and it fucking disappeared. I'm so pissed!!!!!!!! here we go again.

It is my belief that the system today is the way that it is because in the past, too many dads hauled ass. They didn't help out once they left. Remember when it used to be all you heard about? The system in place now is there to protect single parents and children from getting left behind by a parent who isn't interested in the physical responsibility of raising their child(ren.) The courts are there to mandate a financial responsibility. Which is great.

However, not all parents do this, and in fact, if there were a statistic somewhere I'd be willing to bet that it's probably a lot lower than you think. The parents that are not willing to provide support for their children does not exceed the number of parents that are willing and do. It's not fair to the ones that actually care and make that their first payment every month. And when you consider what I just said, you also have to consider that pretty much half of America's families right now are divorced.

Guidelines are figured on how much you make. You write it on a sheet of paper. They do not verify your income. If you want to say you make $100/week, you can. They do not consider how much you pay in monthly expenses to live.

Now, with your post in mind, consider this.

Mom and child receive $300/week in support. Both Mom and Dad are struggling somewhat, but still stay alive at the end of each month. Dad pays his support, Mom and child get it, and that's that.

Mom remarries. Stepdad makes okay money, they earn a modest living. Her household income has increased. In this case, household income should be considered, for this reason:
Stepdad contributes a portion of money for utilities, rent or mortgage, food, etc. At this point, support for the child is still necessary, but should it should be reconsidered. The father should not still be paying $300/week. There is an added income to that household, in which THE CHILD lives.

Now, in response to whether or not the payor should increase their support in the case he/she remarries, the answer is no. Of course not. This isn't a situation that can be flipped/flopped to ask the question, "well if it's that way then it should be vice versa." If the payor has an increase in income, they are required to report that to the courts. Which, by the way, rarely happens. But in this case, the child isn't living in this home, in which the income has increased. Again, if either the father or mother has increase in their own income, they must report that. And I'm of the strong opinion that if the household income that the child lives in increases, support should be reconsidered.

I'm also of the opinion that the parent with whom the child lives should be required to provide documentation of receipts, printouts, etc, of monthly expenses. Where the money goes is what matters most, and it's the one thing most people don't know. It's why we have child support, money to support the child. Tell that to the dad who struggles to pay his bills and pay his child support on time, lost his car, yet Mom enjoys her membership at the gym down the street.

[Beelz]

Araby, I do believe I can see your point. I can see how in your situation the father is just barely getting by, and the mother, with the new added income, is sitting a lot prettier than before. In this case the Mother is making out like a bandit while the father appears to be getting the shaft.

I'm no expert with child support, and I never will be, but eventhough you brought a solid idea to the table, it is an opinion, albeit a very well thought out opinion, but still an opinion none-the-less, just like mine about it being a parent only based payment. I still personally believe it should be between the two parents. Hell actually we are in america, and this is a system and as long as there is a system there will be ways around it people will exploit:

People reporting fraudulent incomes, People not reporting true household income when a new person moves in, People avoiding marriage to make the non-custodial parent pay more by not having a combined income if they(gov't) choose to adjust child support that way, etc....

As for your last comment that the custodial parent should provide documentation of receipts, printouts, etc, of monethly expenses. It's not a bad idea, but it should apply to the non-custodial parent also, copies of all paystubs should be provided also. Only problem is having to pay the people who have to keep track, document, approve, and file all this information would pull Child Support Recovery down fast without a large gov't boost in spending.

[Agrajag]

I also see your point, Araby. If the household income of the custodial parent increases, should that have an impact on the amount the non-custodial parent pays? You say yes. I have to disagree with you.

If I, as a custodial parent, marry my current girlfriend and increase my household income, why should she have to contribute more money to the bills now that we are married because I have to take less money from my ex? She was not present when he was conceived or when my ex decided she wanted a divorce. Why should my new wife be held financially responsible or be financially punished because she married a guy with a son? Now, granted, all of the money I get from my ex for my son goes into an account for him.

The same could be said for my ex. I wouldn't mind more money from her, but if she got remarried, why should her new husband be responsible to pay for my son's child support?

[araby]

The new husband wouldn't be responsible for paying your son's support. Your child doesn't live in that home, and so if your ex got remarried, the amount of money he makes doesn't make a difference. It's her child, and she pays support based on your incomes only. The reason she is solely responsible for paying it (and not her new husband) is because your child lives with you and not her.

You pay a certain amount of money each month/year for you and your child to live and your ex wife helps with money she sends. If you don't need the money to pay bills, then great. Either way, she is still paying you for his SUPPORT.

When your single income becomes a dual income because you remarried, you are no longer paying everything alone. Your new wife, (if of course they work) are now paying a portion of your bills. I don't think that the new wife should "fork out" anything toward your child. However, if she works, and she helps pay the bills, that is-in a sense, "forking out" money. But my point is, that you still receive support from his mother. It's my opinion that it should be refigured for homes with a dual income--in which the child lives ONLY.

[Agrajag]

What if my new wife contributes 0% of her income to the bills or any other household monetary uses? What if the only reason she works is to pay for her schooling? Should her income still be a factor? If my new wife spends all of her income on school and supplies by your reasoning I now contribute less money towards my son. Now I have to pay all the bills (higher water bill, electric bill and gas bill), buy the food (for 3 instead of just 2 now) and still do it on the same income.

If they factor in her income, but don't factor in the fact that she uses 100% of it for school they will lower my ex's payments. This will then lower the amount of my household income. Now, if I actually depended on those payments to keep food on the table for my son, something like that would be devastating. Correct?

The State doesn't care where the additional income of my new spouse goes after she gets it. They just care that she gets it in the first place before they make the decision to lower a payment. In their eyes "school" is something that can be done at any time.

[araby]

What if my new wife contributes 0% of her income to the bills or any other household monetary uses? What if the only reason she works is to pay for her schooling? Should her income still be a factor?
The State doesn't care where the additional income of my new spouse goes after she gets it. They just care that she gets it in the first place before they make the decision to lower a payment. In their eyes "school" is something that can be done at any time.

You are making a great point, and it's the biggest reason I feel the way that I do. And to answer your question, no...if she makes no money then of course all of that is reviewed..etc...

In my original post, I stated that I disagree with the fact that the courts do not verify income, they do not consider how much you pay monthly to live, and I think that if they considered ALL of these things that we've talked about, then child support could be fair and put toward what it's actually intended for.