Seriously, what is CS for?
Such a rhetoric question I know. But when custody is truly 50/50 and BM makes almost 25% more than BD and BD still pays CS, what is it for? Would it be reasonable to expect it to pay BD's 50/50 share of a cell phone plan, car insurance, school lunches? I thought the CS concept was to equalize the household but when the payee makes more than the payer and still gets child support, it can't be that. . .
Or is it just free money to swirl away down a toilet and they still need to split everything from a Dollar Menu burger at McDs, bandaids for the little stubbed piggies - to college tuition and braces?
- Paintcrisis's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
BD should not be paying CS in
BD should not be paying CS in the situation you describe - that makes no sense. I live in a state that defaults to 50/50, and if one party makes more than the other CS will usually be ordered, but TO, not from, the lower paid parent.
In your case, have circumstances changed? Is the 50/50 court ordered? Are current income numbers being used? That just makes no sense to me.
I believe this is a private
I believe this is a private DIY agreement of my friend's divorce. He really should request a review because the BM is demanding 50/50 of all expenses so I am not sure what she justifies her CS to be used for.
The he is a big dummy for
The he is a big dummy for agreeing to that. I would suggest t your friend that they actually go to court and get something ordered so that he can stop that nonsense. He may even get CS in this case, but at the minimum he wouldn't be paying her.
Is the current CS being paid
Is the current CS being paid due to arrears from a former agreement?
No arears or change in
No arears or change in custody since they divorced years ago.
As the others said.. this
As the others said.. this doesn't make sense unless the circumstances perhaps have changed.. or he really doesn't have 50/50 officially.
Are you including the EX household income.. or just the EX income?
No changes since the divorce
No changes since the divorce and they both are one person households.
I am just trying to understand why they would have this arrangement and why he is complaining now when they set the prescedence by doing it themselves years ago and splitting costs above the CS he shouldn't have to pay.
Red Flag of Guilty Daddy
Run!
I mean, HE AGREED to this
I mean, HE AGREED to this arrangement, is complaining about it not being fair, yet will do nothing to change it.
Sounds like he needs to wipe his mangina.
In our state they never award
In our state they never award 50/50. They award maximum 51/49 - through the courts which is what BM wanted to do. DH pays a lower amount of CS because he was laid off at the time of divorce. So it does boggle the mind how the person who got away with zero debt, paid none of the taxes on the massive amount of DH's retirement and savings (DH paid ALL of it...correction, is still paying the IRS off), got the house with a low mortgage and with a rental unit she earns income off of, the car, ALL of the household items and a very good job, still got CS.
Here in CA they don't allow
Here in CA they don't allow actual 50/50, this way poor Meth addled BMs can still get their drug money...yes I'm jaded.
He chooses to pay this amount
He chooses to pay this amount, so what's he complaining about?
Great discussion
Over the years, I have seen many CS cases on here where they set a prescedence in how they start. In my friend's case, I really don't believe that he could get CS stopped because all too often, you see judges rule that 'since BD has been paying this all along, he can continue to pay'.
If CS was truly about NCPs paying for a child's upbringing and not about standard of living, we wouldn't see the ruling where NCPs pay child support but also have to split sports fees, school lunches, etc. . . CS could be argued that a payment would be NCP's share of those fees. But time and time again we see they have to pay a share in addition to CS.
This leads me to believe that it is being ruled to benefit the lower wage earner's household and not for the sole benefit of the child.
I have been on both sides of the fence. Currently I receive CS as the CP for my youngest. The only other thing my ex and I split is daycare. Otherwise I take care of copays for routine doctor visits, lunch and activity fees and things like that. If we were to have a major medical bill, I can see us splitting that.
When my ExH was paying CS, he paid the maximum allowed as NCP and also split every little expense that came up. BM even sent him bills for expensive basketball shoes and things like that.
It seems to be the general consensus that judges and BMs look at CS as supplementing the household in addition to splitting other things.
OP you asked, Seriously, what
OP you asked, Seriously, what is CS for?
--------------------
For some people it is for ingredients needed to manufacture Meth. For others, well, to pay bail money. You know, stuff like that.
It depends on bm's needs.