Child Support minimum in SD is $230/month = $49,680/18 years

and that's if you don't have to pay for college.

If you go to

http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/Childsupport/south_dakota/default.asp

And put in the legal minimum wage income for both mother and father, it's $230 a month, each and every month.

And if the father gets a better paying job, it just goes up from there.

father?

That is what should be the focus, you know how repugs are about their money.

Don't even tell me men here are going to bitch about the measly obligation of $230.

Newsflash. KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS if you don't want a child. Wear a condom, get yourself fixed. ONLY YOU are in charge of your own reproduction.

You are out of line on this one. That is $230 per month minimum, meaning for the lower end of the wage scale. So if you are making $35K per year and trying to make ends meet,you are the one paying $230. If you are married and both have a lower wage, you can get by and raise a kid.

Try to find an extra $230 per month to support the kid you care for when you are making crap money.

The tables are set up as a percentage of income so the $230 number is a misnomer here.


RM

If they can't afford to take care of a kid, then they need to get a vasectomy or get a second job... like single moms do, when the guy who fathered their kid gets away with paying little or nothing -- lots of deadbeat parents out there who don't pay support (men and women, although it's usually men because of the way custody is often set up).

And, I understand it's a sliding scale, but even $500 a month is nothing when you're talking about raising a child. To raise one as they should be raised takes a good chunk of money.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

relatives and friends who have been screwed out of child support -- owning a company and paying themselves a itty bitty salary, working construction jobs under the table, etc.

Hey, glad to know you had that extra money floating around.

YOU getting lectured by a one-count poster. Forsooth.

It must be Spring Break at Bob Jones U.

I worked as a waitress for $1.75/hour and a house painter for $4.75/hour while going to college to support my daughter and if you can believe this: made too much to receive any decent assistance. My worthless ex worked construction under the table to avoid payments making three times what I did and all he supported was his booze habit and the whatever slut of the week he had shacked up in his apartment, usually a traveling stripper.

I've seen all kinds of "men" from all income groups and walks of life do every manner of reprehensible thing to avoid their obligations. I do know there are a VERY VERY FEW women out there who are unjust and abusive of their child's payments but for every one of those women I can guarantee there are at least 75 slimebag goons like my ex. Most of the "men" grumbling about paying their obligations are of very low character, have jealously/possessive issues and/or have very Neanderthal views about divorce and child rearing I.E. they think if they're not screwing the mother they shouldn't have to pay support.

Not even food stamps. My mom used to send CARE packages with food and clothes for the kids.

It sucks... and it hasn't gotten any better. And yeah -- there are lots of middle and upper class guys doing this, too.... *sigh*

Ready for the countdown to "man hating" posts?

And you know what? I don't consider him my father. My mother worked day and night to support me, and my maternal grandparents took us in and took care of me. I was lucky in that my mother's family was middle-class and my mother already had a job that paid more than minimum wage. I got an extremely good education at one of the top schools in the nation (with a scholarship, of course) and am doing quite well now. (I'm not done with my Ph.D. yet, but I probably won't have any serious financial problems after I graduate.) My "father" tried to contact me a few years ago, but I refuse to have anything to do with someone who was so happy to shirk his responsibilities when my mother could have used his help.

If those Neanderthals think their child won't recognize their selfishness and greed, they're pretty stupid. They may need that child's help in their old age.

My mother married another Neanderthal when I was 12, but that's another story.

Thanks for making me spit my coffee all over the screen.

And I agree. $230 a month for a CHILD? Is THAT how we are going to fight this South Dakota travesty? Wow!

:kick: I hope you enjoy it here!

I understand that child support obligations can make it difficult to re-establish yourself after a divorce. The problem is that your child needs financial support today. You're saying that at 35K salary paying $ 230/month "extra" is too much. Let's do the math. At that salary you gross $2900/month. Let's assume taxes eat up half of that. You have $1450 net income. Subtract child support and you have $1220. How do you live on that? I don't know, but try living on $1450 net with custody of the child and then tell me asking the noncustodial parent to chip in another couple hundred bucks is asking too much. That's really what child support is about -- taking care of your own child.

making MINIMUM WAGE, $230 is the amount the father would be paying.

At your $35K per year, with the mother making approx $1,000/month ($5.75/hour) and paying $400 a month in daycare expense, then the father will be paying $829/month in child support

Didn't mean for the post to be all about the good or bad of the current child support system, simply a statement for the men in SD who think that choice is strictly a woman's issue - one slip up on their part and they are paying for the next 18 years.

My response was to a poster who thought $230 was too much on a 35K salary, not a comment on your post.

Everyone, male and female, should consider the consequences of a slip-up, whether they be economic or emotional. Sex is lots of fun but it sometimes comes with a very hefty price tag, not withstanding the SD lawmakers' recent action.

Let's try this again, shall we?

Just couldn't contain yourself could you? Welcome to DU.

Guess what? I HAVE made crap money and had to come up the "extra" (inaccurate term here yours) $230x2 (my part and the deadbeat assholes part)to RAISE the child my ex-slimebag not good for shit ex-husband has never consistently paid in his miserable WORTHLESS life.

It's not EXTRA money. It's what is morally OBLIGATED to meet your child's NEEDS. "Extra" money is what you come up with for beer and hookers.

Ask me how I know. :eyes:

Women too. My mother owes my father so much back child support (she last paid when I was seven and my sister four) that my father could pay off his house and have cash left over to by the neighbor's place but he'll never see a cent.

too. You are entirely correct here about the women who owe and avoid as well. The common thread here is selfish and irresponsible.

Why do you think men should pay more than that? Does that mean to you that men should pay for everything? Does that mean the woman pays $230.00 per month to match that? Hell no. Why are men always looked down upon with this.
Child support is not a form of early retirement for the woman child support is paying a share of the expenses for the child that has been taken away from him and given automatically to the woman. If the table were turned here women would have this law changed FAST. And if the man can't pay his monthly support payment his ass lands in jail no matter what the reason. I would like to see that happen to women just once and again the law would be changed FAST.

NEWSFLASH>>>>>>>>>KEEP YOUR PANTS ON if you don't want a child. Use contraceptives, get yourself fixed.
ONLY you are in charge of your own reproduction.

I put that statement in to show this poster how sexist that statement is. I do not condone this.
I believe in a man paying a fair share and I mean his share not more than his share.

about child support and custody.

You are on IGNORE.

I have never used that feature for so many people on one thread! But, these kind of threads bring out the misogynists -- of both genders.

close to winning some sort of award.

Why do you think men should pay more than that?
Well, because kids are REALLY expensive.

Does that mean to you that men should pay for everything?
No.

Does that mean the woman pays $230.00 per month to match that?
Oh hell no, she pays WAY MORE THAN THAT if she's raising a child.

Why are men always looked down upon with this.
I don't think they are. I really do think that most men are HONORABLE and responsible people who pay their support without crying and complaining like little weenie cowards.

Child support is not a form of early retirement for the woman
Early retirement :rofl: on $230 a month :rofl: with a child to raise :rofl: Oh stop, you slay me. :rofl:

child support is paying a share of the expenses for the child that has been taken away from him and given automatically to the woman The child is given to the most responsible parent who requests custody, like my neighbor who is raising his two kids alone.


And if the man can't pay his monthly support payment his ass lands in jail no matter what the reason.
If you neglect the obligation to your child your ass belongs in jail and yes it's true, lame excuses only work for so long with judges and then they just don't care about your little "poor me" stories. I have yet to see one deadbeat asshole behind on his support that didn't have enough money for beer.

I would like to see that happen to women just once and again the law would be changed FAST.
Deadbeat broads go to jail too and they belong there.

NEWSFLASH>>>>>>>>>KEEP YOUR PANTS ON if you don't want a child. Use contraceptives, get yourself fixed.
ONLY you are in charge of your own reproduction.

I put that in there again because while the truth may make you uncomfortable, it's still the truth.


I believe in a man paying a fair share and I mean his share not more than his share.
What's that? When you have the 'extra' money and you feel like it? After you've set aside a stipend for hookers and beer?

Not sure exactly why you posted this without comment. Is it your opinion men are paying too much?
Is it your opinion that because of the SD law theres going to be more men paying alimony?

without easy resolution of abortion, get on with life. we may see some shifting on tis issue. males having just a tad bit of responsibility and a role in this abortion to do

get the message out. let men see the repercussion. then lets see what they advocate

as a woman it is my body, my decision

the man doesn't get to decide whether or not i have the kid based on whether or not he feels financially ready, when you allow the man to put in his two cents, the door swings both ways, and anti-abortion men who do have the money could get court orders to stop a woman from aborting "their" baby

so men have always had the risk of, one slip-up, if the woman doesn't get an abortion, they're paying child support forever

nothing has changed for the man

the harm done by denial of choice is to the woman and that's where i have to put my focus

"Is it your opinion that because of the SD law theres going to be more men paying alimony?"

Finished 3rd cup of coffee, i'm better now.

Alimony's a different animal - that's payment solely to the ex-spouse so that he/she can maintain the lifestyle to which they're accustomed. It's not done a lot anymore since women now have a few more options in the workplace.

We're talking child support.

is punished for having an abortion then the father must receive equal punishment since she belongs to him and he is forever expected to control her every move and thought.

By God.

180

they are the first, giving sperm, to control preg or not..... so bottom line, if they get girl preg, they have got to be responsible for creating environment, that the baby will be nurtured and loved and raised in place where needs will be met

if.... a woman isnt given that, to allow her to raise a baby, then i think male needs to be brought into equation and held equally responsible.

It takes two.

180

Trickin them poor boys into being fathers. Shameless harlots, lives of riley, etc, etc. Fucking Cretins...

give us $230 a month and we will ride a limousine to work every day whilst feeding our spawn not but flour cakes and government cheese.

The more you make the more they take. Age 22 I had a check that had zero dollars on it as it all went to the good ole Friend of the Court, so keep crowing about something you know nothing about.

So, if you have a good judge, a bad lawyer, etc.... it can make a difference.

The judge will tell you if you can't afford it move back home. I have been in this system for 16 years with two years to go. My wifes employee makes 60,000 and pays 775 a month for one child his ex wife doesn't work. A system that makes you pay more when you make more is just insane.
Michigan is the toughest State in the Union on child support, they have their own cops, and own system that is financed solely by the child support payments. The Friend of the Court system finances itself. The base is 18percent of your wages per month.

I wish every state was like that.

His ex not working doesn't make a difference in what HE should pay. It's not alimony, it's child support.

That sets such a good example to the child.

SHE'S not allowed to live off of it.

What you are comparing is apples and oranges: he has a legally and ethically duty to pay as much as he can in child support. And, the more he/she makes, the more they have to pay. That is TERRIFIC.

Bring in some kind of "bad example" the lazy bitch is setting is ingenious. All I have is his and your word for it. I very, very much doubt she is laying around eating bon-bons and taking care of both of them on $800 a month. Ludicrous. There's no way this situation is accurate.

Child support doesn't tend to consider the fact that the custodial parent would have to pay for their own house, power, transportation, etc., even if the child wasn't there. The non-custodial parent should really only be responsible for half the money needed for the child, food, clothes, medical, child care. But that isn't really how the system looks at it, total living expenses has always been part of the equation, at least psychologically.

I realize it's all more complicated then this, parenting should have more value from society which would have a support system to alleviate some of these issues. But when child support moves from meeting the child's needs to providing a higher standard of living, then we are kind of moving back into alimony territory.

Each parent's proportional child support obligation is then calculated. (IMO, the custodial parent typically pays more than his/her proportion.)

That's the point of the $700+ post. At some point, the non-custodial parent is paying for alot more than just the basic needs of the child. There's obviously a valid argument that a millionaire ought to provide more for their child than bread and water, but at the same time, higher support often benefits the custodial parent as much as it benefits the child. There's also the argument that the non-custodial parent ought to be able to provide a comfortable home for the child during visitation, especially if they have equal physical custody. A good non-custodial parent will often have the same room and clothes and toys that the custodial parent has, but that often isn't considered. Just saying that dads who want to be good dads do have a bit of a point there.

... than the non-custodial parent's obligation; it's proportionate to each parent's income.

Both parents should be able to house & provide for their child adequately in each of their homes, whether joint custody or any other arrangement... keeping in mind that their child/ren has/have two homes. Parents who put their child/ren's welfare before their own pettiness tend to work out a fair agreement.

The only possible way you could come to the conclusion that the custodial parent's obligation is often higher is if you included housing and similar parental costs as part of the child costs, or assumed custodial parents earn more money. It's also done on a formula, as you've already said, so there's no "fair agreement" to be worked out anymore. The custodial parent receives extra income, the non-custodial parent loses income, and both often try to provide the exact same environment for their children. When that is the case, it should be considered, but it's not. On the flip side, young women are often given much more education and job support, while young men are expected to meet $250+ child support payments on minimum wage jobs. I just think we need to start looking at the whole system with new eyes in order to provide the best possible outcomes for kids.

... is often higher, incomes & expenses of both parents being figured into the calculation.

One thing you're not seeming to get is that the custodial parent also has a calculated legal child support obligation ... a set amount required of that parent for child support; however, the custodial parent does not pay it into any system, instead using it to support the child/ren... and in supporting the child/ren, the custodial parent typically spends much more than his/her calculated obligation... often more than the amount of support received from the non-custodial parent. If custody were reversed, the current (soon-to-be non-custodial) custodial parent would be ordered to pay his/her currently ordered amount to the current (soon-to-be custodial) non-custodial parent.

A fair agreement may not be one that is determined according to a child support worksheet, but a private agreement between the parties, who, as I said, put their child/ren's welfare before their own pettiness, doing the best they can within their means, "to provide the best possible outcomes for kids", as you stated.

Your statement, "... young women are often given much more education and job support, while young men are expected to meet $250+ child support payments on minimum wage jobs." In what country???

(Note: fathers, as well as mothers, are custodial parents... your post seems to indicate a presumption that mothers are custodial parents, while fathers are not.)

Which is why I wonder how you come to the conclusion that the custodial parent has a higher obligation, especially considering the custodial parent is usually the mother who usually earns less. (Yes, that is usually the case and the logical presumption) The entire thread starts with the basis that minimum child support in SD is $230 a month, which would be a minimum wage earner. And if you think a minimum wage custodial parent, with a minimum wage ex-spouse, is spending more than $460 a month DIRECTLY on the child, then you have never been low income.

... than his/her share of the support obligation, though this can be the case whether or not the custodial parent has the means.

Many non-custodial parents hide income/assets or work under the table to lower their child support obligation, and of course some non-custodial parents simply don't pay court-ordered child support... the custodial parent is then solely responsible for providing for the child/ren.

This takes a toll on the custodial parent, especially the low-income custodial parent, and by extension, the children... still gotta put shoes on their feet, clothes on their backs, food on the table, buy the household items, pay the additional housing expenses, medical & dental expenses, child care, etc. etc. Meanwhile, the non-custodial parent is griping that his/her ex-spouse is living the high life, buying designer whatevers with the support check (what a joke... almost as repugnant as Reagan's 'Welfare Queen' story)... while the ex-spouse is trying to make ends meet... w/o losing too much of the middle.

The hiding income and assets is exactly the same kind of stereotyping as the high living ex-wife, in reverse. Times have changed. As often as not, the father has also got a home with rooms for the kids, food, clothes, and other household expenses. He also has to pay the health insurance and college expenses, along with child care when he has the children in an equal physical custody arrangement. It's not 1955 anymore, many men have stepped up to the plate as equal parenting partners and it's high time some women recognize it.

I've known more current spouses who start conflict over a child support obligation than the non-custodial parent... tired of hearing that BS.

Child support is calculated according to income & expenses of both parents. The time the child/ren spend/s in both households is also factored in. Both parents have a proportional obligation. It's not just the non-custodial parent who is supporting the child/ren. What part of that don't you understand?

Gee, you mean it's not 1955 anymore? Someone should have let me know. :sarcasm: I'll update my calendar.

I got a hot $100 a month child support. My ex was air force and I couldn't even get him to sign the paper so my child could get FREE health care. There was never even a birthday present or Christmas present. So don't tell me I don't understand what it's like to raise a kid primarily on your own.

My kids are grown. And as you might see below, we didn't take money from the ex-wife when he lived with us because she was in no position to provide it. But in most instances, there are two parents, both parents have an equal responsibility to the child. To say both parents providing $600 to the care of a child isn't enough, is just flat not reality. That's why that's the amount the state came up with in their lowest income formula. Nobody should be beating either parent over the head when that's the economic situation.

You're so generous in not taking money from the ex-wife when your husband's child lived w/you. Do you pat yourself on the back to this day? Do/did you rub her nose in it every chance you got? Do/did you begrudge her seeking support (if she did) when her son was living w/her?

I shouldn't tell you what you so or do not understand, but you have no problem telling me what I do or don't understand. Nice. (BTW, I didn't say that you "don't understand what it's like to raise a kid primarily on your own.")

And no, the parents do not have an equal financial responsibility; they have a proportional responsibility.

Why on earth did I ever respond to you in the first place? On to better things.

"At your $35K per year, with the mother making approx $1,000/month ($5.75/hour) and paying $400 a month in daycare expense, then the father will be paying $829/month in child support."

Meaning the mother is NOT paying a higher obligation and would have absolutely NO room to be bitching.

Things have changed.

My ex-wife has remarried, and her husband has taken after me with a vengeance.
We have been under legal assault for going on three years now.
I think it was to wear me down for the custody modification they are now seeking.

I'm not sure where you get that support is based on the income and expenses of both parents.

It is solely predicated on what is my net income. For the nine years I have been paying support, that is what has been used to determine what I pay in support, that and how many children under an enforcement order.
Her income is not even in the equation.
Nobody gives two sticks about anybodies expenses, except statisticians.

It sounds like you're the non-custodial parent, and your ex-spouse's current spouse is fanning the flames in the same way that the current spouse of the non-custodial parent often does. In the case of a current spouse, inciting conflict definitely goes both ways, and I've heard from the custodial parent's current spouses, too... comments like "Why should I pay for his/her kid?" "He/she should be supporting his/her kid, not me." "My spouse should get his/her ex for every penny he/she can." "I'm the one putting a roof over his/her kid's head, I'm the one paying for his/her kid's blah, blah, blah." They don't take care to hold their tongues in front of the children, either. So, to keep peace in the new marriage, the parent gives in to the bullying of the new spouse, seeking increased child support in the case of a custodial parent, seeking a reduction of child support in the case of a non-custodial parent... and the children often get caught in the crossfire.

Where I "get that support is based on the income and expenses of both parents"... Does your state have child support worksheets to calculate each parent's support obligation? Have you filled one out, or was support ordered by a default order? Each parent lists income & expenses on the worksheet... each parent should fill out their own worksheet, but if one parent is non-responsive, the other parent can fill out the info, based on available info, and a default order may be awarded. Even if the custodial parent is unemployed (or underemployed), his/her income can be imputed to determine his/her support obligation.

If you haven't already, you might consider connecting w/a father's rights group for some legal assistance regarding both the child support order & the custody modification. I hope your child/ren come out of this situation w/o being too adversely affected. Best wishes to you all.

I would live in a smaller house than I would if I had children. So, part of the payments go towards the children's homes, as well.

The difference doesn't amount to what some child support payments would provide. And with joint physical custody, the non-custodial parent can make the exact same claim about housing. Women wanted dads to take more interest in their children. Well, they have, and the monetary changes need to follow.

then I hope that you are paying more for child support than someone who is making $25,000 per year. And the same goes for someone who makes a million a year.

Their children should reap the benefits of their money more than anybody else in the equation. Whether it's to live in a nicer home or get a better education, they are the innocents who should be taken care of. There shouldn't be any animosity or anger about it. A parent should give his child whatever he or she can, and the fact that courts have to order this crap and enforce the payments is the biggest pile of BS that I can imagine. I sacrifice to give all the members of my family as much as I possibly can. My own children? Even if I was divorced and hated my husband? It goes without saying that I would send as much as I could sacrifice. Those who complain about that? They're just selfish.

That's not the case for most people so why even bother with that discussion.

A parent should give his child whatever he or she can. To some people, that seems to mean everything the man has regardless of whether it leaves him sleeping in a car, or whether he can never do more than visit his kids for an hour or two because he's got no home to bring them to. I responded to someone who was bitching about $300 a month child support, which is based on income these days. That's just the reality for how piss poor salaries are. And when you consider that she should be contributing the excact same amount to the care of her child, then that's $600 a month and guess what, that's more than most lower income people spend DIRECTLY on a child in a month.

that's different. But, it does turn out that many people who are court ordered to pay child support don't pay up (be they either the non custodial father OR mother), leaving the custodial parent to pay the majority of the bills. I know that is not always the case, but in those cases, the onus does fall on the custodial parent. It's not that it SHOULD fall on them. But, try getting money out of a deadbeat father of mother, despite all the fancy court orders. It's impossible.

So, when I see anyone complaining about giving $300 a month, unless they are poverty stricken, I get angry. It's their child. Expenses rack up. In NYC, which is where I live, studio apartments currently cost $1200 a month. So, parents have to make choices in what to give up. Move to a borough. Move to a suburb. Don't buy expensive trivialities. If you are complaining about giving your child money, then you should rethink your priorities.

I'm not saying it isn't a screwed up mess all the way around, I'm just saying sometimes women don't really consider what it's like for men who are trying. Those mothers would have to deal with economic problems without the child too, it's just flat hard to make ends meet for everybody. If a woman knows the ex is paying $300 on a near minimum wage job, she shouldn't bash him over the head for it. And with the new formulas for support, there's no doubt to salaries. The formulas were supposed to end all this animosity.

Around 85% of my money goes to my kids in one way or another.

Must be nice to only have to give up 18%

My CAT gets about 18% of my income a month. My kids? When I have them, they will get much more than that, from BOTH my husband and myself. Who complains about having to provide 18% of their salary to their CHILDREN!?!?

spend about 80%+ of their income on their kids (mortgage, bills, insurance, medical, dental, food, sports, savings, clothing, college, etc.) and anyone getting by with just 18% has NOTHING to bitch about. That's the way I read it? :shrug:

And that's what my response was meant to convey. That to bitch about only spending 18% of your earnings on your own CHILD is out of line. They deserve so much more. Primarily they deserve not to be resented for costing money, though! :)

Sorry I posted and ran, but had to go give a ride to someone without an auto.

:hi:

I'd give my kids 100% if I could.

I can't take it with me and I'd sure as hell rather see them have what they need than have all the grownup toys in the world.

Thats my take home, it is hard to earn a good salary and bring home poverty wages.

And what does this mean for your CHILDREN?

I agree with the judge: don't like it? Get a cheaper car. Move to a smaller house. Sell your motorcycle. Give up that vacation. Want a boat? Get over it. That's what most custodial parents have to do: get over it. Over anything extra. The scenarios of women getting 10k a month and living off their kids' support is either myth or deals struck between celebrities and their spouses.

It's your CHILD.

A system that makes you pay more when you make more is just insane.


if he had loved his family enough to still be with them, then you do realize that as he got raises and earned more, he would indeed be spending more on his children too

why SHOULDN'T you pay more if you make more? half the point of making a lot of money is so that your kids will have a better life and better chances than you did

"if he had loved his family enough to still be with them, then you do realize that as he got raises and earned more, he would indeed be spending more on his children too"

This is a stereotype of men that is perpetuated by people every day, even here at DU. Do you see what's wrong with your statement?

Of all my divorced friends, only one initiated the divorce, and that only after finding out his wife, who worked at the prison, was sleeping with an inmate. Another friend pays $12K per month in alimony and child support ($9K for alimony, $3K for child support with joint custody); he wanted to stay in the marriage and make it work. He hasn't complained once about it even though his wife has the cars, the house, and his income that she shares with her unemployed boyfriend. He has a 2 bedroom apartment and a cat.

That may only be anecdotal evidence, but in my experience, women seem less willing to work on making a marriage work than are men. There are however, real data to back that up:

According to this web site, 2/3's of all divorces are initiated by women. The link also points out that, even in high discord marriages, kids are better off with married rather than divorced parents. A Newsweek article published several months ago (sorry, can't find the link) stated that for the first time (about 2001 IIRC), the percentage of women cheating was higher than that of men, and that the percentage is getting higher. It also made mention of the fact that women now abuse drugs and alcohol at nearly the same rate as men. Divorce is a problem created equally by men AND women, and to put the entire blame on males moves the argument into a realm where the conservatives can win.

Not a whine or complaint from me, just opinion.

Many posts have mentioned women. As stated in posts, often the non-custodial parent is the father, so that is often who the deadbeat is... but it's for ANYONE ordered to pay support who doesn't -- or who bitches about it.

The whole game is rigged, folks!

Should a divorced parent pay for the support of their child? OF COURSE! And that's where the rigging begins...

Of course there is an asshole in every bunch that refuses to pay, but they're the one bad apple the system banks on.

Divorce and family law is an industry to support lawyers, plain and simple. On the whole, they try to give the appearance that they're working in the "child's best interest" but in reality this whole system is destroying families. Period.

Give me a random sampling of divorces, and if we look at them financially, it PAYS to get divorced if you're the custodial parent. Kind of lukewarm on your relationship? Get divorced. You can find a new partner, take their money, and collect money from your former spouse!

Sounds cynical? Sure it is, but that's the bait.

Then the kids get put in the middle.

How many times have I heard of kids coming back from visitation talking about finances or custody? It's so prevalent, and it's so unfair to the kids.

The courts and lawyers have no problem exploiting the kids for their own purposes. Dad isn't allowed to talk to his sons about important issues like staying away from drugs, whereas Mr. Lawyer is allowed (and permitted by Mom) to ask if he has sex with girls at school, if he likes to touch them, all kinds of drug questions... meanwhile the kid turns shades of red and purple...

TELL ME THIS SYSTEM IS GOOD

I've watched families where an alcoholic drug abusing custodial parent makes over $100,000 and has a spouse who makes $40,000 while the non-custodial parent is ordered to pay $500 per month when they barely make $12,000 per year.

I've seen hard working non-custodial parents end up unemployed by no fault of their own, diligently work to get another job, then can never get caught up because the interest accrues on past child support at 12-18% - and they end up jailed.

How is a parent supposed to pay child support from jail? Debtors prison is supposed to be illegal, but it isn't: if the parent that owes the support can't pay, the spouse of that person ends up paying if they don't want their spouse in jail.

How about military Dads (Moms too, but more often Dads) who come back to find their wife has left with the kids and gets sole custody because he's been away at war, perhaps never to see his kids again?

TELL ME THIS SYSTEM IS GOOD

What is the first thing that happens when a family divorces? The custodial parent usually keeps the house and the other parent is homeless.

So the displaced parent has to find a new home or sleep on someone's couch, AND pay child support from PRE-TAX wages and THEN pay the TAX on those wages. Suddenly, that parent is in a much higher tax bracket, because support isn't tax deductable, and no longer has dependents and is in the single category.

The custodial parent automatically gets the children as tax deductions. Even if the court orders the other spouse to get a child as a deduction, IRS law defines the parent providing support who has 51% responsibility gets the deduction, so the sole custodian gets the deduction because the child lives primarily with that parent. They also get additional deductions for being head of household, plus tax credits.

So our non-custodial parent has to find a new place to live, deal with the loss of their family (and don't even get me started with restraining orders), AND they need to find a way to significantly up their income to be able to survive unless they already have a well paying job.

And then it often only gets worse from there. Parents spying on each other. Straining relationships. Putting kids in the middle. Withholding visitation. In and out of court.

The incentives need to be taken out of divorce.

Don't be fooled by this hoax. Yes, non-custodial parents need to pay for their children. But not at the expense of the children themselves.

I don't know what will fix the system, but I know it's definitely broken. Something has to be done for the low-end non-custodial parents. They're the ones that end up never being able to catch up and get rolled in the legal system never to come out alive. Support is non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, and ANY amount awarded cannot be legally revisited or discharged by a judge.

So if you get hit by a truck, and are in a coma for a year, when you come out, you will owe a year's worth of child support and perhaps 18% interest compounding daily. AND you most likely have no recourse.

Some good starters would be to abolish kangaroo Family Court as we know it. Decriminalize it. Require mediation and arbitration. Put actual criminal matters back into real courts. Give power back to the judges to fix situations as they see fit instead of not allowing any debts to be discharged, ever. Change tax law so child support is tax deductable for the non-custodial parent and taxable for the custodial parent. Support children's rights: afford them certain rights at certain ages such as not allowing estranged parents to interfere with the child's relationship with the other parent such as by recording phonecalls or other surveillance, intercepting correspondence for the child from the other parent, etc.

It get so sick so quick. I could go on forever. Our family courts are creating more problems than they solve, and that is the intention: if they create more problems, more lawyers are employed.

This is sad but true; this system is helping destroy our culture.

back patting and high-fives and what not.

Seems the facts don't line up that well for the deadbeat apologists.

no general male bashing intended

to tell you. My ex didn't want a divorce either. He wanted to keep hitting me. He wanted to keep drinking like a fish and he wanted to keep twinking around with his hobbies while I worked two jobs to support him, but he didn't want a divorce.

#1. According to the study you yourself cite you are wrong in your statement about HIGH discord marriages. The children in those homes are better off with divorce.

#2. Also according to your own cited study: "Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be "badly behaved." Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity. " .


Some of them, like my ex-pig, have a fuck-buddy, a maid, a cook, a laundress and a baby sitter all in one. Throw in a punching bag, a scapegoat and a paycheck and why on earth would any man (of that character) want a divorce?

Unless I know there's been abuse, or the children have been distressed in some way. NO ONE knows what really goes on inside an intimate relationship. The nicest guy beats his wife, the nicest woman abuses her kid, etc.....

You make the mistaken assumption that all my friends are male. You also mistakenly assume that I've never been around the sort of abuse you write of.

#1. Here's the exact words:
"A recent large-scale, long-term study suggests otherwise. While it found that parents’ marital unhappiness and discord have a broad negative impact on virtually every dimension of their children’s well-being, so does the fact of going through a divorce. In examining the negative impacts on children more closely, the study discovered that it was only the children in very high conflict homes who benefited from the conflict removal that divorce may bring. In lower-conflict marriages that end in divorce—and the study found that perhaps as many as two thirds of the divorces were of this type—the situation of the children was made much worse following a divorce. Based on the findings of this study, therefore, except in the minority of high-conflict marriages it is better for the children if their parents stay together and work out their problems than if they divorce."

Discord occurs in every marriage, and every marriage at times experiences high amounts of discord. The study pointed out that only in "high-conflict" marriages are the children better off if their parents are divorced. It sounds like your marriage was high conflict, and I empathize with you.

#2. That's why I pointed out the Newsweek article I read. I found part of it here:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5359395/site/newsweek

An excerpt:

"The best interpretation of the data: the cheating rate for women is approaching that of men, says Tom Smith, author of the NORC's reports on sexual behavior. When Michele Weiner-Davis, a marriage counselor and founder of the Divorce Busting Center in Woodstock, Ill., started practicing 20 years ago, just 10 percent of the infidelity she knew of was committed by women. Now, she believes, it's closer to 50 percent. "Women have suddenly begun to give themselves the same permission to step over the boundary the way that men have."

I wasn't saying that abused women shouldn't file for divorce. They should, especially if they have kids. Assholes that beat their wives and treat them, in your words, as "a fuck-buddy, a maid, a cook, a laundress and a baby sitter" are poor excuses for human beings. But unless you can find a study that shows that 2/3's of divorced men beat their wives, your point is moot. It was obviously terrible for you, but only YOU can control the way you react to other men. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about men, perhaps justifiably, but ascribing all divorces to "abuse" or "men who refuse to stick around and love their families" is insulting to me. It's not too far off from the old "all men are rapists" bullshit that flew around the feminist movement 20 years ago.

i do know that some men with jobs and income are kicked out of the house by the mothers of their children, altho in my personal experience this happens DAMN rarely, and the more usual case is the man exchanging a forty for two twenties

the poster i'm responding to is angry that as he gets the big income he is expected to provide more for his child, he wants his child to live in poverty even though he is in the upper middle class -- $60K is an upper middle class income in louisiana and probably at least middle middle class EVERYWHERE -- but he wants his child to live in poverty on a bare minimum

resenting a child and mother -- two human beings -- for having to live on $800 a month, i'm sorry, that is whack

that is just wrong

and i was just as wrong for making it sound like ALL men have this attitude and for that i do apologize

It's pathetic that some men can get away without supporting their children. I wasn't responding to the other comments, I think it's a bad idea to use this as a way to convince conservative men. Those types won't support a woman's right to choose, no matter how we frame it.

Thanks for the apology - it's a rare thing nowadays. :)

Again, not a complaint or whine, just informational.

then your providing for your children well. I hope that they have a good life, and I hope that you have a wonderful relationship with them. :)

I have no wish to know him.

Truly a shame.

and again i apologize, my comment should not have been phrased as it was

for what you did?

You created the kid - don't you think the child has a RIGHT to know you?

Then again - with that attitude - maybe they're better off not.

The child's mother wanted me to have no contact. She insisted. And in the meantime I was over 1000 miles away, so her wishes were granted.

When I returned to my home state, she again wanted me to have no contact, and sent two of her brothers to visit me to make it more clear. Just keep paying the money, any move to force visitation would be met with force.

When the child reached the age of 17, I attempted contact. The child stated that his mother had told him all about me and he hated my guts and wished I was dead. The reason? Because his mother told him that I abandoned him and never wanted to see him.

So fuck you and all your assumptions, and that goes for everyone in this piece of shit thread.

I paid, and I'm a bad guy...

From what you said, it seems that your child hasn't had the opportunity to hear all of the facts, or if he/she has, may not be ready to believe them. Someday your child may want to get to know you. I hope you will be receptive if/when that happens.

Sounds like you've paid in more ways than one... and missed out on what could have been beautiful years.

(Edited to add: I am not defending the previous poster's comment about punishing your child; I don't think that comment was warrented.)

"I have no wish to know him. "

That makes you the "bad guy", imho - he's just a kid who's been brainwashed. You should at least make the attempt. Write him a letter telling him otherwise.

And yeah - you should have paid. You created the kid - you have a responsibility.

And the problem is?

I would think a man would want to do all he could for his child. It's not the child's fault the marriage or relationship failed.

It isn't ALIMONY, it's child support.

to child support issues.

Every post of yours on this thread and been talking about lazy exes, etc.

Who here said woman never renege on child support? NOT ONLY FRIGGING PERSON. The huge majority of single custodian parents are the mothers. And, a unfortunate percentage of them do not do the right thing.

You apparently are bitter about paying child support for 16 years -- you say you've "been in it" for 16 years, and only have two years left. Are you counting the days? Because you sound very, very negative.

Reality is it's NOT the person paying child support being screwed, it's the custodial parent and, especially, the poor child, getting screwed.

on edit: Actually, I'm putting you on ignore, because I don't come to DU to read crap like this.

Take a look at this article and tell me what state it's in. FYI, just took my kid to a Pistons game last night so you know where you can stick your ajenda.


http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4603850

who is claiming that women are perfect? We're complaining about MEN complaining about giving $230 a month to a child. In this scenario, if a woman left her family and was called to do the same and complain about it... then she would be just as guilty and scummy as the man who is complaining about this.

Give me a break. Don't make excuses for men (or women) who don't want to give their children what they need or deserve.

Nice Man bashing thread you have going here. See what state it's in, Michigan.
Paying child support for an ex girlfriends kid.


http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4603850

OF COURSE they take more if you make more silly silly willy! Here is a link to federal child support guidelines and enforcement so you don't have to further risk looking foolish or uneducated about the law and this system. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2005/handbook_on_cse.pdf

I'm going to bet there's a DAMN good chance when you got that 0 dollar check you were already behind on your support. If you weren't behind (highly unlikely) you obviously chose not to work enough to provide your obligation. So what was your child supposed to do while you had other priorities? Hang on a hook and wait for you to decide you had enough "extra" to spare? That's not how it works for single parents who are RESPONSIBLE. We go get second jobs, we take on roommates or move in with relatives or we go homeless caring for the children irresponsible and worthless parents leave behind like worn out toys.

All I have is your word about this supposed scenario involving your wife's employee but let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your limited and one-sided assertion is not completely baseless. Do you think this woman is living like the queen of Sheba on less than $800 dollars a month? I suppose she winters in Monaco with all that money, that's what I would do. SHEESH. :crazy: Further more, did anyone force this man to have unprotected vaginal intercourse with this woman? When I say unprotected I mean did he take RESPONSIBILITY for his own reproduction and use a reliable condom, get his nuts fixed or keep it in his pants?

I repeat, only you are responsible for your own reproduction. Period.

I'm currently collection child support (well, currently I'm suppposed to be, anyway). Does that make me a lazy greedy slut? Is there someplace where I can get a teeshirt to show my affliation? I'm really not very good at the greedy or slutty part, unfortunately, but I'd still like to have a tee shirt.

greedy SLUT! We saw you! Cashing in that massive support check so you could go get a manicure and that new gold-plated humidor for the game room you're having built on to the house so you can gamble away your next massive check.

Feel better? :D

Sorry I don't have a T-shirt. We'll work on that.

ex pays $775 a month in support. Why, his youngun don't even have shoes, but he just bought a new Lexus with that money!

are living as high as those people on food stamps. :sarcasm:

Really. Children are EXPENSIVE. They have to go to the doctor. They get sick. They need to be clothed, fed, and once in a while, something needs to be done to improve their minds, such as having a book to read. I know it's rough out there economically, but child support is not a luxury.

I was awarded $100/mo. for my (at the time) 12 year old son payable till he was 18. My 18 year old daughter was headed out for college and there was nothing beyond an assisting her with her education general statement. That boiled down to I paid all that she could not get loans or scholarships to pay for. That's how it usually works, I think. BTW, my ex was an engineer who worked for an international bank.

My ex uncle refused to even pay for EYEGLASSES for his daughter, or to help out with the cost. Why? Because it wasn;'t in the court order! Jerk. He made over $80,000, and my aunt made $28,000. Raising TWO kids. On $250 a month child support. While he took his GF and HER KIDS on vacations to Disney World.

My grandmother was going to use part of her Social Security check to pay for half, until my parents heard about it and sent my aunt the money.

What is wrong with people? Are they just sociopaths or something? They are YOUR KIDS. The kids were 8 and 10 when they got a divorce, so they definitely knew their Dad.

It just totally blows my mind. I guess that is while I am here and not at some RW site, it pretty much defines "us" vs "them"!

You have to have a total lack of empathy.

I even tried to get it raised in later years and was told the judge would think it "unconscionable" considering I was working and making a good income too. Things have changed, but on the other hand, the change only considers the engineer type of income, not the low income worker who is living in a car in order to pay child support.

I bet that makes the anti-alimony men's rights activists here happy. He avoided me until I turned 25, and then he tried to reestablish contact. I told him I didn't want to see him, since I don't consider him my father. The fact that he contributed a sperm doesn't make him my father in any meaningful sense. Fatherhood is a responsibility. And frankly, the anti-alimony wastes of skin here don't deserve the gift of having a son or a daughter.

When my mother divorced her second husband, she didn't even try to get her half of the house, since he threatened to kill both of us.

No abortion, no alimony. What a wonderful world!

50,000, with SD set to get a good percentage of that total no abortions for anyone.

I bet your wife, who lives with your child, is shelling out more than $50,000 for your child. How greedy can you be. It's your CHILD, for Christ's sake!

if they even get caught . . .

does the state of SD pay child support in those cases?

on all those babies born to poor women and families? An extra child in a family can make thousands of poor families (now making too much to receive welfare) eligible for welfare with the extra child.

Should've kept their damned legs closed anyway.

and I'm unemployed.

huge savings right there!

That's right, $78 per week because he would rather stay underemployed to keep his payment as low as possible, yet still retain visitation of his daughter.

have the right to see her.

All visitation should be based on the best interests of the child only. Unless there is something terribly deficient or dangerous about the non-custodial parent it's almost always in the best interest of the child to maintain a healthy relationship with both parents. This should continue irrespective of the NC parents payments of support. Child support is not a lease agreement. This being said, child support should always be vigorously enforced.

to make certain his children were financially not wanting, THEY had the right to know their father, and I facilitated that. He was never denied visitation. But when he did visit, he was Daddy Warbucks. Once he brought my 12 year old son a designer robe. Kid needed shirts, jeans, and shoes for school (his feet were growing 2 sizes a month--he finally maxed out at a size 13), but now it was a designer silk robe, video games, and a suit. A suit!! We couldn't even afford to go to the movies back then. Our version of entertainment was a randomly called "jammy day" when you didn't have to make your bed and could sit around in jammies all day and play games, watch a rented movie or two, and eat all your favorite foods. I miss those days. The kids and I had such fun sitting on blankets on the floor and clowning around. I miss those little happy faces.

Who cares if they're older and/or they're convinced you may be losing a bit of your mind. Go for it! Have a jammie day! You may be surprised. :-D

including the other half you're contributing. That's enough for food, clothes, and health care; which is life in the USA for most kids. Most people are broke, including ex-husbands. That's just the way it is. Since he's paying quite a bit as it is, I highly doubt he's purposely turning away extra income for himself just to spite you.

And, I would like to know what health care you think everyone has.

My parents made very little money while I was growing up, but they did everything they could to give us a nice life and little treats -- even if my Dad had to work a second job sometimes. THAT'S parenting, not saying $78 a week is enough for child support.

Why am I arguing this, gang? IGNORE.

It's not 1955. $600 a month directly to a child is generally adequate, especially for low income parents. If the non-custodial parent makes more, then the new formulas will take more, thus the built in nice life and treats. But if they don't make more, then nobody should be bitching about a non-custodial parent paying their half of what is a reasonable amount to provide for the basic needs of a child. You can ignore low income reality if you want, it doesn't make it go away.

That's the end result of outlawing abortion. The legislators and the fundies live in this fantasy world where people are perfect. Even the most careful people have accidents.

Just like their insistence on abstinence before marriage has lead to skyrocketing divorce rates, outlawing abortion will result in hundreds and probably thousands of kids under the direct care of the county and state governments.

Even though, according to the state's schedule, he should be paying double, he gets by with this because at one time I was non-custodial parent with minimum wage job and this is what I paid. (He makes almost $60,000/yr.)

It gets confusing, does the money go for your child, or does the parent use it to live on? Like I can do a whole lot of living on $270/month, once I buy food, clothes, toothpaste, etc for my child. Sign me: a lazy ignorant slut living off child support money.

It is NOT money paid to the custodial parent for them to live on, it is money you owe your child, hence the term "child support". I am glad that most states have formulas these days, rather than having to prove what your child needs.

for 20 years, due to extra medical expenses on top of the support payments.

My overall tally was about $104,000.

This is not a complaint or a whine, just informational.

you keep track of your overall tally! I'm sure your kids are happy to know how much they "owe" you in return for all the money you spent on them from the goodness of your heart.

You would have spent that money if you LIVED with them, as well. That's not ABOVE AND BEYOND what you would have spent had you remained a family. So, why the tally?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it certainly does.

Cunt?! I dislike the use of the word "bitch" on DU as an insult to women... it's ignorant at best and misogynistic at worst... but this? Your post? You have shown your true colors. This is NOT different than calling a black DUer a n*gger or a gay one a Faggot. Shame. I think perhaps you're on the wrong board.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Don't forget to add in interest. If you hadn't paid out that money you could have invested it and earned a return. At least 2.5% with just a savings account. With bonds or stock you could get up to 20% (historic average, right?)

So it's probably much more even at the minimum.

if i'd been the non-custodial parent i'd probably have invested it all in f and ene and lost all my money

the dirty little secret of america is that most lose money on their investments

I don't need it.

We split most expenses.

She buys toys and clothes for her house and I buy them for mine.


The best arrangement I could possibly imagine.

that you have a private agreement with your ex partner. That seems to be so rare to come by these days, but it's incredible that you both spend what you are able to raise your childrena and provide them with their necessities and their toys. That's good parenting! :)

('dated' meaning for at least a month or so)

3 of the 4 demanded that I collect child support from my ex.

They were shown the door, post haste!

We never asked for child support when we had my husband's son either, for several years. It would have been ludicrous, she was a waitress who could barely support herself. Not that we had that much income either, but still, one more kid wasn't that big of a deal when we had 3 others. Put the shoe on the other foot though, with a man who has a low income job, no empathy at all. I don't think it's right, not in this day and age.

future fairer and clearer in cases relating to custody/support. A neighboring county has a female judge who was witness to a, uh, less than fair agreement , Now she is a judge and making changes for the better.

Your children are lucky to have a parent like you. And your ex sounds like she does well by them, as well. :)

As well as literally joint custody. That's terrific. You show you are adults who truly care about ONLY the best interests of your kids. Your behavior shows some of the "men" on this tread what a real man is.

Kudos!!!

dats bout alla ya kin gits muckin alla dem horse stalls out ya know.
Praise Jesus.

then you never have to worry about that.

I am so sick of these crybabies at DU who: (a) don't have a problem with abortion being banned, and (b) don't think men should be forced to pay child support.

Go ahead, ban abortion in all cases, and ban alimony. Go on until women are forced to risk pregnancy and 19 years of financial support for a kid each time they have sex with a man. You are all extremely stupid if you think women will keep having sex with you in the face of such risks. No self-respecting woman with a brain would even get near any of you. You are doomed to be stuck with brain-dead self-hating women for the rest of your lives, and frankly, you deserve it.

for his two sons (now 19 and 22). He'd paid for 12 years. He never paid less than $800 a month when it was both of them, or $450 a month when it was one. He got approximately 1/3 custody because he insisted on that when the original parenting plan was done. He never begrudged a single nickel of it. How could he? Those are HIS CHILDREN!

My own father left my mother when I was six weeks old - left her with six children ranging in age from 13 to six weeks. He never paid her one thin dime. Is that the way some of you think it should be?

My father is not my model for the way a father should be, not to me. My husband is.

:hug: to the good parents out there, both mothers and fathers, who do not begrudge the money their children require.

Your husband, however, is the REAL man. Kudos to him. And to you, for not begrudging him stepping up to the plate.

Whoa. We are a family of five. So, if I took all of our "necessity" bills (electric, heating, food, mortgage, gasoline, clothing, etc.) and divided them by five, $230 wouldn't even come close to one child's portion.

Hats off to all the single moms (and dads) out there. You are the true miracle workers.

thread, I must say I'm a bit taken aback by the hostility on both sides. There have been some valid points raised though. I have a perspective on this from a bit of both ends actually. Was a single mom for MANY years, never recieved child support for the 4 that I had. However, because those relationships ended, and I might add with anger, doesn't mean that I would've nor did I ask my children to see their dads as rotten. I kept that to myself, and let THEM make the choices when they got older. For the first two, had court ordered support and recieved ONE payment of $10. That's right, $10 per week, for a grand total of $40 a month. Over the years, lost contact with the man. He knew where my parents were, so could have easily found us had he wanted to. Well, he finally made contact with the oldest two. Interestingly enough, now that they have reestablished some form of a relationship, I am now the bad guy for the one child, but the other is more cautious and actually REMEMBERS that I did not talk shit about his dad, no matter what the provocation. The second one, well, he disappeared, I never saw any money, and went on. That's fine. Enter the third SO/hubby. Has three children from a prior marriage. Took on my FIVE as his own, and never pressured me to look up and/or enforce any child support. Was never an issue. Now turn it around to the OTHER side. His ex, and her husband, aggressively pursued him for child support. Now, the thing is, he never objected to paying the support, but she was always using the children as a cudgel. Not allowing visitation, etc. That went on for YEARS. Finally, the oldest reached age 18 and decided to find out for HERSELF just what the hell was going on, and to actually MEET with her dad, which had not been allowed for 12 years. Don't get me started on this "underemployed" bs either. Do you REALIZE how many people are underemployed, not because they choose it, but because the only jobs out there are what we are able to get? Anyway, he was paying full support even after they reached 18 because of arrearages (loss of job a few times and arrearages build up awful fast). The oldest of this three is turning 27 this May. Guess what? It took ALL THIS TIME to get it to where he was only paying the arrearage, not the arrearage plus the full support amount. We've both always worked, by the way, at whatever kind of job was available. The way the support was calculated for him was off the GROSS income, and no other expenses were factored in. Paying the full support plus arrearage put a significant dent into our incomes, but it was paid. At times, paid at the expense of rest of us. So ya know? there are two sides to everything. ALWAYS. This system is broken beyond belief.