How should child support be calculated.

[Dabo614]

Originally Posted by Bmoreblitz

No if YOU read....he straight up contradicted himself. Putting a disclaimer out there and then saying the opposite.


Point is.....a lot of fathers cry the "whoa is me".

I pay child support myself. And Maryland rapes fathers.

Talk about contradicting oneself.

[Dabo614]

Originally Posted by Bmoreblitz

No if YOU read....he straight up contradicted himself. Putting a disclaimer out there and then saying the opposite.


Point is.....a lot of fathers cry the "whoa is me".

I pay child support myself. And Maryland rapes fathers.

Your doing the same as me blitz,,,on one hand your paying good for you, im glad,,on the other your complaining just like me by saying maryland rapes fathers,,,just like me.

[Benton]

Originally Posted by Dabo614

And this is why i get annoyed dealing with people in these boards.


"now before you spin that,,i will follow it up by saying that doesnt mean i shouldnt have to help pay."

Again i never stated that CS is wrong or men./women shouldnt have to pay it. When your ex is making over double what you make and can easily pay for everything,,why then does the system require you to pay so much that you cant even live on your own? So no,,,technically its not about the kids at this point as proven the mother in my case could have easily taken care of them without my support,,,however that doesnt mean i shouldnt contribute,,but where is the line drawn so the man can actually support himself as well? Because we all know you wont get squat for assistance unless you have custody. So the man basically is arse out and told "oh well" while the woman gets CS as well as state assistance. And dont tell me that dont happen as my wife was getting free govt medical card for the kids (i dont remember if thats medicare or medicaid) as well at one point she was getting some help for the daycare bill ,,and 1-2 utilities.

My next statement isn't about you or your situation. You're the only one who knows what that's like and I'm not going to chime in with any insight because it would most likely be mistaken.

But, as far as the bolded comment, why? Becuase it's not about the dad. It's not about the mom. It's about the kid. Child support isn't established to punish one parent or to make life easy for another. It's there to make sure the child is taken care of (physically, emotionally, socially), even if that means the parents have to eat lots of ramen noodles and shop for clothes at a thrift store.

My statement isn't a reflection on you (like I said I won't even begin to guess anything about your life), or that you or the child's mom isn't providing as much as possible, but is more about the intent behind child support.

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by Bmoreblitz

No if YOU read....he straight up contradicted himself. Putting a disclaimer out there and then saying the opposite.


Point is.....a lot of fathers cry the "whoa is me".

I pay child support myself. And Maryland rapes fathers.

You obviously didn't understand what he was saying. You're focusing, incorrectly, on a point he's not making.

Originally Posted by Dabo614

Now if she can afford it all on her own, but having me pay 300 is going to make it where i cant even afford live on my own i find unfair and unbalanced.

That's the issue. Making sure that both are responsible but not making it so one party is put in a position where they can't have basic necessities like a roof over your head and an ability to maintain your bills and buy food.

[Bmoreblitz]

Originally Posted by rfaulk34

That's the issue. Making sure that both are responsible but not making it so one party is put in a position where they can't have basic necessities like a roof over your head and an ability to maintain your bills and buy food.

No I understand that point. But I HIGHLY doubt that the court makes a person pay so much that they can't afford a ROOF OVER TOP THEIR HEAD OR FOOD.

I've never heard of or seen court taking that high of a percentage that what's left isn't enough to live. If it is they are fools for not getting a lawyer or appealing.
Maintaining some bills i.e. credit cards... is not and should not be a factor.

IMO....a lot of parents get tagged with the Child support and because the amount won't allow them to "maintain" the same lifestyle without having to work harder.... then they are the victim.

[Dabo614]

Originally Posted by Bmoreblitz

No I understand that point. But I HIGHLY doubt that the court makes a person pay so much that they can't afford a ROOF OVER TOP THEIR HEAD OR FOOD.

I've never heard of or seen court taking that high of a percentage that what's left isn't enough to live. If it is they are fools for not getting a lawyer or appealing.
Maintaining some bills i.e. credit cards... is not and should not be a factor.

IMO....a lot of parents get tagged with the Child support and because the amount won't allow them to "maintain" the same lifestyle without having to work harder.... then they are the victim.

It wasnt about maintaining the same lifestyle,,,as happened we got back together before the support order even kicked in,,,but this was done by a mediator in the courthouse with both of us present..

Sure i could have moved in with family,,maybe even a friend,,that was not the point,,,,so ill ask you,,,you try making 8 dollars an hour while paying almost 300 a month in CS and then try to get your own apartment and support yourself with whats left,,,,,,FYI, i also has a 300 a month car payment with 100 a month insurance, so there is a total of almost 700 dollars leaving me around 3-400 a month,,,,really???

[Bmoreblitz]

Originally Posted by Dabo614

It wasnt about maintaining the same lifestyle,,,as happened we got back together before the support order even kicked in,,,but this was done by a mediator in the courthouse with both of us present..

Sure i could have moved in with family,,maybe even a friend,,that was not the point,,,,so ill ask you,,,you try making 8 dollars an hour while paying almost 300 a month in CS and then try to get your own apartment and support yourself with whats left,,,,,,FYI, i also has a 300 a month car payment with 100 a month insurance, so there is a total of almost 700 dollars leaving me around 3-400 a month,,,,really???

I'll ask you this....what state tried to make you pay this amount ? So that I can make a few calls and see what that state would have a person making 8 hr pay.

Thanks.

[Dabo614]

Originally Posted by Bmoreblitz

I'll ask you this....what state tried to make you pay this amount ? So that I can make a few calls and see what that state would have a person making 8 hr pay.

Thanks.

ohio,, and this was back around 06,,they also figured my wifes pay into it which was around 17 an hour at the time, it wasnt at 300, it was a bit below that if you want to be technical. Nothing had been official, it was just a mediator in the courthouse who took our incomes and claimed she based it off the formula the state uses and thats the amount she came up with,,,i almost s##t when she told me.

[Bmoreblitz]

Originally Posted by Dabo614

ohio,, and this was back around 06,,they also figured my wifes pay into it which was around 17 an hour at the time, it wasnt at 300, it was a bit below that if you want to be technical. Nothing had been official, it was just a mediator in the courthouse who took our incomes and claimed she based it off the formula the state uses and thats the amount she came up with,,,i almost s##t when she told me.

I feel ya Bro!

[SteelCitySouth]

Originally Posted by Bmoreblitz

No if YOU read....he straight up contradicted himself. Putting a disclaimer out there and then saying the opposite.


Point is.....a lot of fathers cry the "whoa is me".

I pay child support myself. And Maryland rapes fathers.

LOL...



P.S. It's Woe is me...

[Lolli]

Start here:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml

For every dolar that you make above the poverty level, a percentage should go towards the child.

The percentage should be sliding based on the number of children that you are supporting. Arbitrary, but maybe as low as 20% for 1 kid and max it out at 66% for an infinite number of children.

Every time your income level changes, you would have a limited time to inform the court so that the % would change.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Originally Posted by Dabo614

ohio,, and this was back around 06,,they also figured my wifes pay into it which was around 17 an hour at the time, it wasnt at 300, it was a bit below that if you want to be technical. Nothing had been official, it was just a mediator in the courthouse who took our incomes and claimed she based it off the formula the state uses and thats the amount she came up with,,,i almost s##t when she told me.

My son's mother would agree with you (if it wasn't for her family, she would probably be living on the streets) and I know people that can't make it on their own either and had to take on room mates in order to make ends meet. Even a 1 bedroom studio apartment can take up to $3-400 per month for rent, then factor in electricity.

So we factor in $8*40 (standard work week)*52 (weeks in a year) /12 (months in a year) = $1,386 (per month) *.8 (20% taxes)=$1,100

$1,100 - $300 (child support) - $400 (rent) - $80 (electricity) = $320 left for food and gas (if you have a car, which hopefully it's paid for, if not then take that out as well and insurance on it). I haven't even factored in Health Insurance, which typically the male must carry if it's an option which will **** some more out of their paycheck. I don't know about all of you, but I pay easily $150 per week in medical insurance for my family. So for now those single parents that can't afford insurance will start getting hit with fines if they aren't insured in the next couple of years.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Originally Posted by Lolli

Start here:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml

For every dolar that you make above the poverty level, a percentage should go towards the child.

The percentage should be sliding based on the number of children that you are supporting. Arbitrary, but maybe as low as 20% for 1 kid and max it out at 66% for an infinite number of children.

Every time your income level changes, you would have a limited time to inform the court so that the % would change.

Is the non-custodial parent able to count the child in this scenario?

[Dabo614]

Originally Posted by Mike M (the other one)

My son's mother would agree with you (if it wasn't for her family, she would probably be living on the streets) and I know people that can't make it on their own either and had to take on room mates in order to make ends meet. Even a 1 bedroom studio apartment can take up to $3-400 per month for rent, then factor in electricity.

So we factor in $8*40 (standard work week)*52 (weeks in a year) /12 (months in a year) = $1,386 (per month) *.8 (20% taxes)=$1,100

$1,100 - $300 (child support) - $400 (rent) - $80 (electricity) = $320 left for food and gas (if you have a car, which hopefully it's paid for, if not then take that out as well and insurance on it). I haven't even factored in Health Insurance, which typically the male must carry if it's an option which will **** some more out of their paycheck. I don't know about all of you, but I pay easily $150 per week in medical insurance for my family. So for now those single parents that can't afford insurance will start getting hit with fines if they aren't insured in the next couple of years.

Yeah thats basically all i was saying,,,now if the mother is not making much as well then i believe both parties should have to **** it up and either work overtime or get 2nd jobs,,,but what about these mothers who either make more than the father, or get tons of assistance and they are sitting just fine while the father is struggling to even have his own crap apartment,,,thats been my whole argument this whole time.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Originally Posted by Dabo614

Yeah thats basically all i was saying,,,now if the mother is not making much as well then i believe both parties should have to **** it up and either work overtime or get 2nd jobs,,,but what about these mothers who either make more than the father, or get tons of assistance and they are sitting just fine while the father is struggling to even have his own crap apartment,,,thats been my whole argument this whole time.

Well my ex-fiance was one of those that made $80-100k per year, and her ex was lucky to make money. They had 2 girls together and I'm still unsure how he was even capable of paying anything for child support. He owed so much he kept getting ordered by the court to pay it down or go to jail. Of course when that came, he would pay the minimum that the judge ordered, but it was a cycle with him. He had to get "girlfriends" to live with him just so he could afford rent. Saddest part was that he was only a few credits away from finishing his degree before his wife busted him cheating on her. Long story short, she had full custody and I'm still not clear as to why he was even supposed to pay very much at all considering the discrepancies in their salaries.

[Bmoreblitz]

Children are entitled to be supported by both of their parents. Child Support is based on the dad's income, the mom's income, and the parents' timeshare of their children. If your wife has sole or primary physical custody of your children, you would likely have a Child Support obligation even though your ex earns more than you do.

Some pay more probably only because the children's custodial has such a higher timeshare with the children than they do. Have more over nights, File an Order to Show Cause, re: custody and visitation. Support is based upon custody-not just income.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Originally Posted by Bmoreblitz

Children are entitled to be supported by both of their parents. Child Support is based on the dad's income, the mom's income, and the parents' timeshare of their children. If your wife has sole or primary physical custody of your children, you would likely have a Child Support obligation even though your ex earns more than you do.

Some pay more probably only because the children's custodial has such a higher timeshare with the children than they do. Have more over nights, File an Order to Show Cause, re: custody and visitation. Support is based upon custody-not just income.

Even in shared custody, the one that makes the least will get CS from the other, which is a reason why I think that most mothers stay away from it unless the father makes more than them.

When I went to court to fight for my son, his mother wanted Full Custody and nothing else. I proposed several shared custody (with me having the rights for schooling purposes) arrangements and each one was shot down with out even looking at it. When you asked her what was wrong or what could be done to make it more acceptable for her, she would respond with nothing because it's not full custody. So after a while the Judge awarded me full custody based on the mother's lack of communication and willingness to cooperate and put the welfare of the child first. (PS we were never married so I had a huge uphill battle considering that I had almost zero rights).

[Dabo614]

Originally Posted by Mike M (the other one)

Even in shared custody, the one that makes the least will get CS from the other, which is a reason why I think that most mothers stay away from it unless the father makes more than them.

When I went to court to fight for my son, his mother wanted Full Custody and nothing else. I proposed several shared custody (with me having the rights for schooling purposes) arrangements and each one was shot down with out even looking at it. When you asked her what was wrong or what could be done to make it more acceptable for her, she would respond with nothing because it's not full custody. So after a while the Judge awarded me full custody based on the mother's lack of communication and willingness to cooperate and put the welfare of the child first. (PS we were never married so I had a huge uphill battle considering that I had almost zero rights).

I know what you mean,,,cause in ohio if the child is born and you are not married the mother gets sole custody automatically until a court deems otherwise,,,course me being a man im biased and dont agree with that lol.

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by Mike M (the other one)

Is the non-custodial parent able to count the child in this scenario?

To keep things simple I would do what ever is acceptable for tax purposes. If you can count the kid as a dependant for taxes, I would say yes. No otherwise.

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by Bmoreblitz

No I understand that point. But I HIGHLY doubt that the court makes a person pay so much that they can't afford a ROOF OVER TOP THEIR HEAD OR FOOD.

I've never heard of or seen court taking that high of a percentage that what's left isn't enough to live. If it is they are fools for not getting a lawyer or appealing.
Maintaining some bills i.e. credit cards... is not and should not be a factor.

IMO....a lot of parents get tagged with the Child support and because the amount won't allow them to "maintain" the same lifestyle without having to work harder.... then they are the victim.

You're shifting the focus again. I'm sure there are those that play the "victim". The point that some are making is that one of the parents is usually put into no-win situation. The priority should be on the welfare of the child but is it good for the child if the non-custodial parent has to get a second job and is not able to spend time with their children? Is the money more important to the child than the parent being able to see their child?

[Bmoreblitz]

Originally Posted by rfaulk34

You're shifting the focus again. I'm sure there are those that play the "victim". The point that some are making is that one of the parents is usually put into no-win situation. The priority should be on the welfare of the child but is it good for the child if the non-custodial parent has to get a second job and is not able to spend time with their children? Is the money more important to the child than the parent being able to see their child?

No AGAIN..I understand if you took the time to read more than one post.
Yes I agree if the courts are taking a unsubstantiated amount of the non custodial parent's money. Even though most have a standard formula and not a case by case figure. It is WRONG and a part of the unfairness many have to deal with because of so many dead beats.

I just found it strange for a court to order so much out of one's income that they couldn't manage.