Ugh... got a copy of a subpeona in the mail today regarding my divorce...

[jh1]

you may find this interesting. Or maybe not...lol.

Several states changed their laws and new law went in effect this year which take into account the % of time with each parent. Also, those states only considered the income of the non-custodial parent in setting child support. Minnesota and Georgia immediately come to mind. Those two courts are going to be FLOODED with men reducing child support obligation amounts now. The judges are going to be absolutely swamped. Seems like a national trend is emerging to consider how much time the child spends with each parent.

I see both sides of the issue, but I think that the new law will cause additional fighting between parents at the time of divorce. Some parents my fight for time with the kids just because of the break on child support. If I were pursuing child support, I could entirely see my ex trying to get the child just so he wouldn't have to pay, even though he has no love for or interest in the child.

That isn't the case with you. I'm just talking about the law changes and what results they may or may not have.

Something has to change. I completely agree with the changes you are describing as I understand them.

THe way it is here is unfair, unjust - it's just flat out wrong. Worst -it's not int he best interests of the 'CHILD' as alll these assplants run around saying 'WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN' OMG!!!

Anyway. As to your concern about the additional fueding over the the money based on time and the potential of some parents looking for more time simply to reduce their amounts. Well there is a flip side that as well. Many mothers seek and fight for custody today simply becaue the child becomes a meal ticket - so that's even WORSE.

Further - when a child is 50/50 between parents and it has been legislated that based on the two incomes - as an example - the amount for the child per month is $1500, but since the counts don't recognize 50/50 they assign 66% to the mother and 34% to the father - not only does the child loose out when he is with his father, the father looses as well.

THe child could see the father as less able to provide- which hurts their relationship - which in turn may motivate the father to take less physicall custody because he cannot afford to take on 50% custody without 50% of the funds.

This crap has to change.. it's not right. The laws need to be mandatory that strict calculations are made and followed with regards to child support. Having a vagina does not entitle you to 66% of the money when you agree to a 50/50 legal and phsyical arrangement.

 

[heatherrae]

Hey, let's not get into a fight over gender on this thread. The vagina thing is uneccessary. Let's stick to the custodial, non-custodial thing as that is the real issue. Traditionally, lots of women have been left holding the bag when deadbeat dads had babies and then just split. I think the law is just starting to turn the tide to not treat all child support situations as if that is the case.

 

[jh1]

Hey, let's not get into a fight over gender on this thread. The vagina thing is uneccessary. Let's stick to the custodial, non-custodial thing as that is the real issue. Traditionally, lots of women have been left holding the bag when deadbeat dads had babies and then just split. I think the law is just starting to turn the tide to not treat all child support situations as if that is the case.

Oh. Sorry. YEah. I didn't mean it about you. Seriously.

This bold part is key... we're all paying hte price for the times when women always got the children and always got hte support. And from when there were looser deadbeats.

I suspect that *SOME* of the deadbeat stuff is due to the way courts have been handlign support though. It's really rediculous. I can very easily see getting the point with this stuff where non-compliance is better than that complying based on principle alone.

I am entirely for child support, but it has to be fair.

Extreme examples are the dads that are ordered to pay even after they prove they aren't the parent. That's more than a slap in face - I'd go to jail over that. And to the not so exteme - but simply unjust and insulting - like having to give 66% of the legislated funds to the mother in a shared 50/50 parenting plan.

BTW - Custodial / Non-Custodial terminology - doesn't have to and shouldn't EXIST in shared parenting plans. The parents should be 100% equals. Period. I had it removed from my parenting plan, I won't stand for it - simply because I am the one that makes more money - I am assumed to be non-custodial? Please.

 

[puddlemonkey]

I will never get married and I'll never have kids. The way the system works is a big part of that. I watched my father get screwed in my parents divorce 20 years ago. Our company's owner is in the middle of a divorce and they've already spent more than 500k on lawyers between the two of them.

 

[heatherrae]

Oh. Sorry. YEah. I didn't mean it about you. Seriously.

This bold part is key... we're all paying hte price for the times when women always got the children and always got hte support. And from when there were looser deadbeats.

I suspect that *SOME* of the deadbeat stuff is due to the way courts have been handlign support though. It's really rediculous. I can very easily see getting the point with this stuff where non-compliance is better than that complying based on principle alone.

I am entirely for child support, but it has to be fair.

Extreme examples are the dads that are ordered to pay even after they prove they aren't the parent. That's more than a slap in face - I'd go to jail over that. And to the not so exteme - but simply unjust and insulting - like having to give 66% of the legislated funds to the mother in a shared 50/50 parenting plan.

BTW - Custodial / Non-Custodial terminology - doesn't have to and shouldn't EXIST in shared parenting plans. The parents should be 100% equals. Period. I had it removed from my parenting plan, I won't stand for it - simply because I am the one that makes more money - I am assumed to be non-custodial? Please.

I didn't take it like you were talking about me. I just wanted to keep it where it didn't get ugly about gender.

I see your point. I guess any way someone divides it up, someone is going to bitch and be unhappy about it...lol. I'm not sure if I know the best formula.

I'm glad I'm not even going to bother with it.

 

[seaking420]

when you say 66% of legislated funds what exactly do you mean?

Man this sucks. I dont know how anyone can remarry after going through a divorse

 

[Raptorex]

this shit makes me anxious, brings back memories of a personal injury case I had to settle...after 3 years, interogetories, depositions...all that is one big stressor.

 

[jh1]

when you say 66% of legislated funds what exactly do you mean?

Man this sucks. I dont know how anyone can remarry after going through a divorse

There is a chart they go by - which is legislated.

So for the combined income of couple X, the amount for total child support is $1000.

In missouri that $1000 dollars would be divided 66% to the woman and 34% to the man even in a 100% shared 50/50 custody plan.


The $1000 comes from the incomes based purely on income %'s, but when it's devided under and differnent standard. Horseshit.

 

[heatherrae]

There is a chart they go by - which is legislated.

So for the combined income of couple X, the amount for total child support is $1000.

In missouri that $1000 dollars would be divided 66% to the woman and 34% to the man even in a 100% shared 50/50 custody plan.


The $1000 comes from the incomes based purely on income %'s, but when it's devided under and differnent standard. Horseshit.

it isn't specifically to the woman or man by statute, JH1.

I think it is that you make 66% of the combined income and she makes 34% so that the combined child support amount is divided pro rata based upon income.

It isn't related to gender in the child support guidelines.

 

[jh1]

it isn't specifically to the woman or man by statute, JH1.

I think it is that you make 66% of the combined income and she makes 34% so that the combined child support amount is divided pro rata based upon income.

It isn't related to gender in the child support guidelines.

Nah.. that's wrong.

Here's a more clear example:

Man makes: $ 60,000 (60%)

Woman makes: $40,000 (40%)

Combined income: $100,000

Assume the amount for the child per month by statue for 100k is $1000.00

Man contributes: 600
Woman contributes: 400

50/50 legal and physical. Woman is the presumed recipient in this case since she makes less money.

Woman gets $660 or 66%, man gets $340 or 34%.

Net result man pays woman $260 per month.

See the math is fine - contributions to the amount of CS are based on income %'s. It all falls apart when the court 'Devides' the pool. They see the income percentages are relevant - which they are - but they fail to see the % of custody as releveant. 66% of the money for 50% of the custody.

In the above example - with the Honorable, Logical, and RIGHT Jay-H-One presiding. The man would pay the woman a net of $100 per month. Which devides the pool of $1000 equally based on % of custody.

That's what the is logical conclusion is.