I can answer that.
MY BIOKID has a deadbeat dad. Therefore, I must provide 100% of what my child needs. DH cannot and should not get upset about that because A- I am not using our household budget to provide for my child. I make my own money and I pay MY half (actually MORE than half, closer to 2/3rds) of the household bills. and B - because I am not using HIS money to provide for my Bio.
SKIDS do NOT have a DEADBEAT Dad. In fact, DAD provides not only CS, but MANY MANY extras. Lavish birthday & Xmas gifts AND takes Skids on vacation. For the past 12 years he has also been suckered into paying for all sorts of crap that BM should be paying for.
It is not the same thing SAF, it just isn't.

Child SUPPORT. And in most states, the algorithm figures the percentage the NCP has to pay based on what usual "support" would be if the couple was together.

In my case, my DH works and has a great job. BM doesn't work AT ALL. Therefore, in this great state, that means my DH's CS contribution is HIGHER because her contribution is ZERO. IF she had a job, his monthly CS obligation would go down.

So, basically, my DH supports his kids 100% already. Even those things the BM "pays" for isn't really paid for by her, because she doesn't have an income. So after my DH pays CS (which is a healthy sum), why should he then be expected to pay out even more above and beyond? If the BM wants SK's to have the latest and greatest, well then hey, go out and get a job.

I agree that once in a while is not a big deal, but when it's ALL the time, I'd have a problem with it. I'd also have a problem with it just like the poster you're referencing because she stated they're struggling financially, her DH pays CS, and then goes out and spends more money that they may not even have (or that could be spent on a household bill)?

I completely feel for that poster. I have been in that situation, which is why our finances are separated. I got tired of working my ass off so the BM wouldn't have to.

PS - please note that MANY 2nd wives end up ALSO paying 100% of THEIR kids expenses, since their husbands pay CS and EXTRAs that they should not pay.

And please, don't give me the line of "he had other kids first"...the fact is that when you are married, you spend X on your kids...then you decide to have another kid based on your current income/expenses...usually, that first kid does without many luxuries once the 2nd kid comes into the picture...it is a fact of life...However, once divorced, the 2nd wife and ex-husband can decide do have a kid because they pay X in CS, thus they feel they CAN have that other child...that is, until the ex finds out and then gets MORE CS for the 1st kid...so there goes your budget. And that is VERY different than kids in an intact home.

No parent should have to pay 100% of expenses, that is true. But CS should be for the "needs" of the child, NOT the "wants" of a child. The wants should be paid by each parent as they see fit or can afford. In intact families kids don't get the latest electronic gadget if the parents cannot afford it...simple...heck, they don't get it if the parents DON'T WANT TO pay for them. Somehow, once CS comes into play, some think that WANTS are a right...and no, they are not.

And by the way, for divorced women who remarry and still get CS (which is ok, not saying the kids are not entitled to support), NO COURT goes after the BM if she decides to be a SAHM and doesn't contribute MORE to the kid...but in the case of NCPs and even 2nd wives, that is NEVER an option.

There are many divorced women who are remarried or have a live in boyfriend who consider themselves "single moms" because they claim to pay 100% of the needs of the child or even when they receive CS, they don't feel it is enough. How come nobody sees the 2nd wives as "single moms" when they have to support their kids 100% because the first wife gets so much in CS and extras, that the 2nd wife has no choice but to support their kid 100%?

Heck, some divorced women who are remarried still consider themselves single moms even though
1. they work and contribute to their children's expenses
2. they have a husband who pays at least 1/2 of the household bills and then some
3. they get CS

But a 2nd wife that
1. works and pays 100% of the needs of her child
2. pays to support her husband because most of his money goes to CS and EXTRAS for the 1st kids

Is NOT looked at as a single mom? Gotta love it. So the ex-wife if remarried literally has 3 people supporting ONE home and a set of kids and the 2nd wife usually has ONLY ONE person supporting her kids, her. But somehow we are to feel sorry for the ex-wife and skids? Sure.

Again, I doubt anybody here says that kids are not entitled to support from their fathers. But support is for needs and NOBODY should be made to spend on wants or risk jail time. If you as a "single mom", ie remarried with new hubby and receiving CS, do not pay for expensive piano lessons you can't afford because you decided to stay at home, you are NOT sent to jail...if our DHs do the same, odds are, they will end up in jail.

That is my situation, I receive nothing and my loser XH since he chooses not to contribute.

I don't know if my DH is pissed about it or not but I certainly am. Its not new and was like that when DH and I got together. We both definately agree that my XH is a loser, and always will be.

I do not ask my DH to contribute financially to my bios. There is a bit of a gray area there - I usually buy groceries for the household on my dollar for everyone and DH usually pays when we eat out with each other or as a full family. So I consider that a wash - but that is it, we otherwise contribute equal amounts twice a month to a joint account where bills like utilities and mortgage and large purchases like a new TV or family trips are paid for from.

In my opinion its not ok for EITHER parent to foot 100% of the bill for children they both created. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. When my XH complains about his finances - I remind him not so nicely that he shouldn't bitch because he currently gets his kids for FREE and then I ask him how his new iPhone is working out for him.

I think it sucks that your x doesn't pay any child support, but if this is nothing new, I'm not sure your DH should be pissed. Sure, things would be easier on you both if you received support, but it is what it is...

Am I annoyed that my DH has to pay child support? (SD is now 21 so we don't qualify under what you wrote, but I came in the picture when SD was 15). I'm not annoyed by the child support. It is what it is. It's something he has to pay, and that's all there is to it. Is BM struggling? Yes, and she doesn't make sound financial decisions, but I think regardless both parents struggle more when there's a divorce. DH did give VERY generous gifts above and beyond child support. He bought her a car when she turned 17, and paid the insurance and maintenance until BM got greedy and wanted more and more and took DH to court. He felt taken advantage of, and said "I'll pay whatever the judge wants me to, but no more extras."

I wasn't annoyed about the massive expense of the car because he planned on doing it, and it was all his choice. He still gives SD extra money, but now she asks directly, and he decides whether or not she deserves it.

DH might think BM is money hungry and greedy, but the reality is she's getting what is court-ordered, and no more (finally). SD is very obviously not wanting for anything. In a more perfect world, more NCP's would pay the way DH does. We've learned to live our lives without that money, and are just fine. It's a shame your XH is not being responsible.

My DH pays monthly CS, as well as buying extras now & then for SD15. Meanwhile, BM likely uses the CS to buy her booze, pills & weed....which is why DH does buy extras for SD. Nothing really that we can do about how BM uses the CS, because if confronted about it, she lies her ass off.

However. Where I DO have a problem is when BM demands that DH contribute 1/2 toward a cruise she's letting SD take with a friend. DH wasn't consulted about it before the cruise was booked, it was during the school year so SD missed one full week of classes, and BM demanded that DH pay 1/2. He refused. WWIII.

I do not get CS for my bio. I do work though. What DH and I spend in one month on my bio is WAY less than what we pay for in CS for his bio. My ex is a loser and so is his so we are even. That is my arguement to DH he doesnt like it but oh well. Plus on top of that my services as a wife are not free. I cook, clean, shop, wash and on and on and on! So when his money helps to pay for my bio...well dammit...I worked for it and I earned it for my bio

I think that any parent should contribute what they want after CS is paid. AND WHAT THEY CAN AFFORD. I understand what you are getting at, but I think a lot of stalk family’s are struggling financially. They see their kids going without and then DH goes and spends money on the first child. That is disgusting on DH's part.

I think the other poster that you blasted was struggling to pay off a DR debt for her and DH's son. DH played poor, yet has money to go get SD some new shoes.

I would bet that if that family was VERY financially stable, the SM would not have cared one bit about that damn pair of shoes.

BMs should not be able to sit on their asses and get more CS.

BMs should not expect to live off of CS only, that is for the child's expenses, not all of BM's crap.

BMs should not insist on primary custody and be a psycho bitch, then expect more money, on top of CS.

I am sure a lot of father's would not mind extras if they have the money and the BMs are doing a good job raising the children and using the CS as intended. However, that is not the case with most people on this site.

i have a little bit different situation since ss14 is with mil. She gets a portion of dh's disability check sent directly to her. It's the same amount as the bm get when ss lived with her. It is not a hugely great sum although it is more than what the original child support order was-in fact close to being double. My mil has discretion to spend that check however she likes. If she wants to "lend" it to my crazy sil for bond money then dh really has no say in that. Since dh doesnt have physical custody of ss14 he cannot take bm to court and make her pay her share for ss's care. MIL refuses to do so because she doesnt want to mess with bm on any level. To me, that is also at her discretion. She has paid cs before to us when we had ss-she has a job-so she would obviously has to pay.

We have provided above and beyond for ss-always. There were many years in which we had custody and bm provided 0 support. I didnt resent my dh for that although I did feel he should pursue support which he eventually did-because that is the fair thing for us and the right thing for ss to have the benefit of both of his parents support. If ss had a true need at this point, I really wouldnt have an issue with it coming from dh and I's joint income. If he had some sort of excessive costs above the ordinary that would be fine. But, my mil is a liar. So every time she comes calling for money because she already spent this amount or that amount I know she's lying. She told dh that she couldnt buy him school clothes because she spent so much on his shoes and school supplies. The kid is in the same class as my daughter. I saw the school supply list. Loose leaf paper and a binder. Even if you wanted to throw in a pack of pencils and a couple extra notebooks-that's not going to exceed 10.00. His tennis shoes were only 6 weeks old-he didnt NEED a new pair-IMO if she deemed that he did that's her business and she needs to adjust her budget accordingly. In any case a pair of tennis shoes doesnt cost 400.00.

Last year, when he lived with mil-we provided him an entire wardrobe of my son's clothes-all name brand, some new with tags, the others hardly worn (my ds had a huge growth spurt and jumped a whole size). We also provided him 2 months later with 5 new shirts and a windbreaker. 2 months after that we gave him 100.00 gift card and a 100.00 winter coat. He's in no extracurriculars, has no "special" needs. We also provide his insurance coverage. We took him to the dentist ourselves for his checkups last year and paid the copays. I dont resent my dh for these extras as long as these are things that we have talked about together and have decided to provide because WE feel like he needs them not because MIL requests it.

I think a lot of times on this board we're driven by emotion.

I think parents should be allowed to spend for their kids if it is their choice, they can afford to contribute their fair share to their current household and other children, and they discuss it with their spouse. The problem and what a lot of women on here complain about is that some of these men just spend, spend, spend out of emotion without any practical consideration to their financial position or any input from the person who is footing the bills because they're not.

And my situation is even more irritating becuase my dh has 50/50 custody, pays $1000 a month is cs, provides a full-wardrobe (including shoes, coats, hats, boots, etc.), meals, toys, entertainment, extra-curriculars etc in our home, so you bet your ass if his kid comes here looking for something "extra" he better be thinking about all of that before he gives her the money and doesn't tell me. But since her mother doesn't work and contributes a big fat ZERO to her care, guess who she is going to ask?

DH and I have a son together. And I buy him whatever I want to buy him. Difference? I also work. I contribute to this household. And no matter how much I spend, he will never ever come close to having even just the cs spent on him in any given month. EVER.

I understand your question and it makes sense. If a mother is the custodial parent and she is getting cs and is working and is also contributing to the care of the child and the child wants something outrageous - say $500 football camp or whatever - should she expect the dh to kick in some of that? I'd say yes IF she discusses it with him first and they agree on a SHARED amount, but for her to just presume the father should get out his checkbook is wrong.

Child support is supposed to be to help pay for a roof over their heads, electricity, heat, food, water, clothing and basic needs. I feel that NCPs should split medical cost, education cost, childcare cost, and extracurricular cost. They would have had to if there was no Divorce. Yeah it sucks when SO has to pay for half of skids soccer, cheerleading, dentist etc. Yeah it makes finances for him tight (we keep it ALL separate) but he would have had to pay all that if there was no Divorce. And Im sure my BD's stepmom hates that her dad pays all that above child support too. But I pay the other half of all that and rent, utilities,food, and basics. It would be alot less if I only had me to worry about, but I have BD so child support covers her portion of all of that. Granted I dont go signing her up for Clown School and off the wall crap and ask him for half, Just normal within reason things. And truthfully if BDs dad found it unreasonable he would say so and not pay it. Which is his right. Thankfully we both have half a brain and can mostly agree on these things. Guess we have a whole brain together

I think that you are missing the point. Your XH should be paying his share and you should be nailing his ass to the wall for it. The fact that you are funding your children's total expenses while their SpermIdiot lives his worthless POS life is exactly same kind of wrong as a CP BM overcollecting from a dedicated and participating NCP BioDad.

I would also hazard to guess that your DH is also participating in the support of your children and very likely has no problem doing so since he is very likely a man of character unlike the worthless dipshit you spawned with. I know this because I am married to a woman who busted her ass to support her child while the SpermIdiot went on to a distinguished career spawning out of wedlock four different times with three different women.

I would also hazard to guess that your DH has no problem with you supporting your children though I am also sure that he would really appreciate it if you kept your XH nailed to the wall for every penny he should be paying as well as for every penny in arrears. The only issue I have had with my wife was when she was under the naive impression that if she tolerated the bullshit from the SpermIdiot and the SpermClan that they would not load our son (my SS now 20) with their toxic crap. Of course they loaded the kid up anyway and finally my wife stepped up and nailed the worthless POS to the wall and kept the SpermClan pummelled into submission for the last 8 years of our CO.

If you have not nailed your worthless POS XH to the wall you should. If you have been trying ... keep up the good work.

Your kids are lucky to have you.

smdh, I totally get what you are saying, skids BM does that. She totally refuses to pay for anything for skids. And I do mean Anything. SO usually ends up paying her half. They have had to switch pediatritions, dentist etc because she filed bankruptcy on her half and they wont let her come back now. SO now just pays it all and keeps receipts. But if he couldnt then the skids just wont have. period. Their teeth will rot out before BM pays for her half of a dental bill.
3in1, I get your point, and concur. I guess what I am saying is if finances change for better or for worse, finances should be reevaluated same as if there were no divorce. And it is up to the BP's to say "uh no, no clown school, I cant afford it and if you wand BK to go then you pay for it." But some expenses just "are" like school and lunches and daycare and drs.

I've told this story before, but I think it applies here.

Our BM had an obligation on her parenting time that would require her to put SS then 5 in daycare. She told DH to pay for it. He said "no, that's your parenting time, that's what I pay you child support for"

She replied, and I quote "I can't use child support to pay for daycare or I'd have none left for me!"