Some of us watched the BM refuse to get or keep jobs in order to lower the portion of their CS contributions in order to have the NCP pay more in CS.

To add insult to injury, some of us watched our skids show up in ratty, dirty clothing, old shoes and coats. Showing up hungry because BM didn't have time to feed them. Showing up with dirty hair because they ran out of shampoo. Letting it slip their electricity is cut off. Trying to call them to find out their phone service was interrupted.

The NCP then turns around and is constantly putting out money for new clothing, shoes, coats, haircuts, toiletries, etc.

Then we got to hear about these same BM's buying Coach bags, paying for acrylic nails, her trips to see her stylist, shopping trips, new cars and spray tans.

Providing for the skids isn't the issue. The issue is many NCPs are paying CS that is not covering for the basic needs of the skid in the CPs home. They are constantly going without so the BM can maintain the lifestyle she built up for herself, which is living off CS and not working. And the NCPs are paying more in CS as well as spending money on necessities that more often than not, end up at the CPs home.

So yeah....a lot of us are resentful of BMs that live off CS.

I see what you're saying. What about in a 50/50 custody situation?

I agree that both parents should support the children. But in this state, CS is a percentage of total income (both parents), however if CP doesn't work, that means the NCP's contribution has to go UP.

My DH's ex didn't work after she had SK's, and she and DH were divorced before the SK's were 2 years old. BM never worked after the divorce either. 17 years later, DH is DONE paying CS (just got the signed papers from the judge last week) and BM has now found employment (10 hrs a week at a truckstop) and is yammering to SK's how SHE can't afford them and they need to pay rent, contribute to groceries, etc. Funny how she didn't require HERSELF to be employed prior to last month, but now that DH is not supporting them, she's not about to spend one slim dime on the SK's either.

One SK said he's considering going into the military just to get away from BM because now all she does is piss and moan about how hard SHE works, and everyone else just "takes takes takes".

Don't get me started in this. Ss14 lives with us full time and sees his mom every other weekend. She is ordered to provide health insurance and pay. half of medical. Poor thing had no job so she is not ordered to pay support.

Funny, she drives a Lexus AND a Malibu and now lives alone in a one bedroom apartment. She also fights about paying half of medical expenses.

I don't agree that a child, any child, is entitled to a parents total income. Entitled to be provided for, yes, but the parents should be able to decide in what manner that comes. So in the instance of a high conflict BM who is happy to use her child as a weapon, it's not so much a fair thing. DH paid a huge amount of CS.

Yes it was Based off his income, but the judge went with the absolute maximum possible. Then tacked on DH being responsible for carrying insurance. And 85% of uncovered medical bills. Except braces which he was to cover 100% of at the provider of BM's choice. He got zero credit for travel, for overnights, and was told to suck it up and stop being a baby basically when BM never covered her share of the medical bills

But mostly I get a little offended when the CP alienates the kid(s), the NCP gets no relationship but still has to pay through the nose. I got a little offended when BM tried to make us pay for college for a kid that wants Nothing to do with us. And CS along with that. I am a little offended that DH worked hard, was successful in his career and he was ordered by a judge to pay out more while no judge would have ever though of ordering BM to get a job. So her income was input at about 800$ a month.

So I don't really think a kid should suffer for their parents choices, but they All do if their parents make bad choices. I also don't think one parent should suffer and do with less because the other parent decides to be a lazy, useless, entitled, unemployed drain on society.

So in some situations ok I get why you would disagree with the statement of CS supporting the CP's lifestyle.... but what would you call it? In our case, according to the court paperwork, CS provided over 80% of the income for their home. You can't convince me that It wasn't supporting BM at that level.

Child support is excessive. My DH pays $1300 a month for his 6-year-old son, even though the BM is now making the same amount as DH per year - $80K+. Yet, somehow she still manages to send the skid over without a winter coat or warm clothes, and then she claims that $1300 a month doesn't pay for crap. Wtf, really? However, the skid has his own iPhone. Yet he can't read or speak in complete sentences.

The skid's in first grade at a public school so it's not like the money's going toward daycare. Instead, it's going toward their Disney trip, which BM brags about all over Facebook and Pinterest. Oh and it's also going to the mortgage on the Ghetto ranch house that she bought with her "fiance," who also happened to be her former manager. He went to work somewhere else after they started dating and she was moved into his old position.

But I digress. My point is that bringing a child into this world is in a lot of these cases a mutual decision. It takes two to tango. Women are certainly more vulnerable in such situations due to biology and earning power depending on their career trajectory. But the reality of it is that you should only have as many kids as you can afford to support on your own. You can not and should not rely on anyone else for income because catastrophes can and do happen.

My grandmother on my dad's side, raised 3 boys alone during the Great Depression. My dad's father passed away unexpectedly right before my dad was born. Did my grandmother have anyone to turn to for extra cash? Nope. She raised them all without child support or life insurance payments. Did they have much money? Nope. But all 3 boys managed to grow up, move on, and be successful.

If it could be done back then, it can certainly be done now. That's why I waited to have kids until I could be certain that I could afford to support them based on my earnings (and savings) alone. Which ironically will be the case because a big chunk of DH's income goes toward the BM. But I'll never pay a penny of my own hard-earned cash toward the skid and ungrateful BM. We keep all of our finances separate.

Excessive child support does women no favors in the long run. If we ever want to receive true equality with men, including equal pay at work, the same should apply to child support. To play the "poor woe is me" card is nonsense. You knew the risks when you engaged in the relationship. Only you can and should be responsible for how your story ends.

My complaint is bm period. She SET the amount she needed in the CO but continues to ask for extra every month. She never fails to have her nails done, sds nails done, and has 3 ginormous dogs but was calling Dh begging for money for food. Lol eat some puppy chow bitch.

Your husband allowed her to set the amount. So why isn't the complaint against him? Unless your husband is handing over extra money each month, her asking shouldn't be an issue. If he is making the choice to fork over extra each month, then he is the one to blame, not BM.

●●●●●●●

I know I'm late to the party but I've got to respond to this.

In our state, CS is based on percentage of income. Only when custody is 50/50 are overnights taken into account. Otherwise, NCP pays full CS. So, yeah, I think that it's very unfair that we have SD 35% of the time & must provide 100% of the costs of raising her during DH'S custody time PLUS 60% of her expenses during BM's time.

I also think that it is completely unfair that CS goes to the NCP tax free. We never even see that money, but it is counted as part of our gross income. CP should have to pay taxes on that money. My DH also does not get to claim SD on taxes, so BM in our case gets around $6000 tax free every year from CS, also gets the child deduction, & gets the benefit of being in a lower tax bracket on top of everything else (like claiming EIC).

Finally, CP also gets any social benefits if necessary because they don't have to claim CS as income. So BM in our case gets free lunches, insurance & childcare for SD because on paper her income is much less & she has custody while we are actually bringing home much less than her & get no benefits. I am not certain, but I also believe BM is getting food stamps & section 8. My DH & I have had a very rough year as I lost my job in 2013. But we couldn't get any help because he is only NCP & I have no other children.

To make it fair there should be an established amount in each county that it takes to raise a child per year. That amount should be split according to number of overnights per household, then the NCP pays 50% of the EXTRA overnights at CP's house. That way each parent is paying half of what it actually costs to raise a child. Not based on income, because incomes changes & shit happens. Also, each parent gets tax credit/deduction for child support. Whether it is alternating claiming each year, or just claiming a percentage or something. It should also be federally run, so that it doesn't matter what state you are in, laws are the same & can be enforced across state lines. This would also stop the local governments from profiting off of CS. I also think a lot more BM's & judges would grant 50/50 if CS was no longer a moneymaker. All I know is this system is effed up & needs a major overhaul on a national basis.

Bottom line on CS...budget what you get for your kid. If you spend indiscriminately and go over budget month to month that's your problem not you exhusband's...CS is for the percentage you child use on household expenses, not nail jobs and expensive clothes, etc.
I'm 50/50 with my exh and you will never catch me asking him for anything - I'd rather shovel shit!