When support exceeds 50 percent of gross income

[Berner_Faith]

When an intact family contemplates having another child, they make the decision together, based on many factors, one of which is financial. They decide together if having more children and less money for each one is acceptable to them.

When a divorced parent makes a decision to have a new child with a new partner, the ex is not consulted about it in any way. Therefore the decision should NOT affect them financially. The CS should remain the same, and the fact that it will remain the same should be part of the consideration the parent and new partner make when deciding to have a child together.

I think I calculated it once that someone would have to have ten children by ten different exes to have their entire income taken up by CS. Obviously this is taking things to the extreme, but why should those previous children be financially punished for one parent's irresponsible decision to keep reproducing?

I agree... CS obligations from the first children should not be effected because of a new child. I don't think any child is worth less than the other, but if you think of it like any other financial obligation, you need to make smart decisions. If you already have a monthly payment of XX for credit card debt and then go and buy a new car and all the sudden can't afford your credit card debt, do you think the credit card companies are going to give you a break because you bought a new car?

My partner and I have waited over 4 years to even begin the actual planning stages. Why? Because we were new in our job positions and wanted a steady income, but we also knew his CS obligations, so we focused on saving money and reducing the financial obligations we could. We now are in the position where adding another child to our family will not have a huge financial impact.

[Links17]

Having lots of babies with lots of women is a good way to ensure none of them get a lot of child support - LOOPHOLE!

[arabian]

Links you missed something (I'm really quite surprised at this). I expected you to say that by spreading the money around it would allow more of us lazy women the opportunity to feast off of the poor, hard-working guy.

You're slipping!

[Links17]

No, no - the amount of money they each get would be a pittance - it wouldn't be enough for them to sit at home and collect child support (i.e: family welfare) so they'd have to go work and pay for their children too (OMG! the travesty).

The government will probably adjust the laws so that they can oblige the payors to sell "non-essential" organs in the best interest's of the children... Who needs 2 lungs?

[arabian]

^now you're thinking^

why not just allow the sale of children?

[Serene]

I find it very interesting how the word "suffer" is used in this post and many others. Are the children really suffering? It is a selective word at best. Are the kids suffering when the family car need repairs and it strains the budget too? What about when Mikey needs braces? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they aren't suffering - they may have faced a reduction or had to make an adjustment but isn't that really a normal part of life and finances?

People's incomes fluctuate. Some people even lose their jobs or find their hours reduced. Tis life. We cannot rely on CS as being absolute. Nor can we talk out of both sides of our mouths - if children's best interests are paramount then it is ALL children - not just the first ones, nor just the ones from the first marriage, as the kids in the second marriage count too. And that includes children in the intact marriage as well. Ya, sure, blame it on poor parenting choices for the individual's to go on and have other kids but the same poor choices could be pinned on individual's for having children with partners who wouldn't see the relationships last until the kids were adults and on their own...

I guess the moral of my story here (and it is not particular to my actual story at all) is we need to solution oriented. What I've seen so far on the majority of this thread is a lot of self interests being promoted and propelled. I seriously doubt that any of these kids are suffering with a reduction of CS. Hell, my parents had very little while I was growing up and I didn't suffer. I surely didn't have the things that other kids had but I had what I needed to grow up to be healthy and a reasonable rounded individual.

[MS Mom]

I find it very interesting how the word "suffer" is used in this post and many others. Are the children really suffering? It is a selective word at best. Are the kids suffering when the family car need repairs and it strains the budget too? What about when Mikey needs braces? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they aren't suffering - they may have faced a reduction or had to make an adjustment but isn't that really a normal part of life and finances?

People's incomes fluctuate. Some people even lose their jobs or find their hours reduced. Tis life. We cannot rely on CS as being absolute. Nor can we talk out of both sides of our mouths - if children's best interests are paramount then it is ALL children - not just the first ones, nor just the ones from the first marriage, as the kids in the second marriage count too. And that includes children in the intact marriage as well. Ya, sure, blame it on poor parenting choices for the individual's to go on and have other kids but the same poor choices could be pinned on individual's for having children with partners who wouldn't see the relationships last until the kids were adults and on their own...

I guess the moral of my story here (and it is not particular to my actual story at all) is we need to solution oriented. What I've seen so far on the majority of this thread is a lot of self interests being promoted and propelled. I seriously doubt that any of these kids are suffering with a reduction of CS. Hell, my parents had very little while I was growing up and I didn't suffer. I surely didn't have the things that other kids had but I had what I needed to grow up to be healthy and a reasonable rounded individual.

What if your parents had very little and then split up. Your dad went on to have more children who are now forced to share what little your dad had with the existing children. These new children have absolutely no relation to your mother at all. She doesn't even see them. But now she's forced to work harder to supplement the little your dad had, but chose to continue to share.

As a mother you would feel like you are suffering. Not because you are destitute, but because you are struggling financially because of the decisions someone you are no longer married to made.

[Serene]

What if your parents had very little and then split up. Your dad went on to have more children who are now forced to share what little your dad had with the existing children. These new children have absolutely no relation to your mother at all. She doesn't even see them. But now she's forced to work harder to supplement the little your dad had, but chose to continue to share

.

So actually, this happened to me but not through my parents. It just happened to me... I ultimately made the decision to be self supporting and independent. And it was no easy feat but in reality it was the path of least resistance.

Now, that does not negate the father's obligations to that child (in excess of 60-70K at this point I'm certain) and it is filed with FRO but I have never updated the interest or pursued it in any way. I think about it every now and again because who couldn't use all that money? But I always determine that there is an opportunity cost and I can better serve myself and my family by channeling that energy and my efforts to bettering me to provide for my family.

As a mother you would feel like you are suffering. Not because you are destitute, but because you are struggling financially because of the decisions someone you are no longer married to made.

This was a fleeting thought if it ever even occur ed to me. Honestly, painting the picture of my child or me being a victim just didn't seem right or logical. I decided I wanted to come out ahead. I don't mind tooting my own horn about it because I worked my ass off. We all prospered as a result (that child and that ones that followed, and yes, even the man I ended up marrying and his wife from a previous marriage and their children).... I could easily say that their children aren't deserving of all the extras they get financially and otherwise (CS alone is more than I spend on any of the other children every month and the children that are not biologically mine prosper tenfold in part because of what I can afford them) and I'm okay with that. In fact, I promote equality in our home, it is regardless of who birthed who and who the mom or dad of that child is. And yes, I'm in a good spot given my education and income, but that didn't just fall in my lap.

And btw, I am not a fan of individual's inferring that "[I] would feel like [I am] suffering..." (although I probably do that myself some times to others). We aren't "suffering" every time the wind blows the wrong way - this IS life!

[MS Mom]

.

So actually, this happened to me but not through my parents. It just happened to me... I ultimately made the decision to be self supporting and independent. And it was no easy feat but in reality it was the path of least resistance.

Now, that does not negate the father's obligations to that child (in excess of 60-70K at this point I'm certain) and it is filed with FRO but I have never updated the interest or pursued it in any way. I think about it every now and again because who couldn't use all that money? But I always determine that there is an opportunity cost and I can better serve myself and my family by channeling that energy and my efforts to bettering me to provide for my family.



This was a fleeting thought if it ever even occur ed to me. Honestly, painting the picture of my child or me being a victim just didn't seem right or logical. I decided I wanted to come out ahead. I don't mind tooting my own horn about it because I worked my ass off. We all prospered as a result (that child and that ones that followed, and yes, even the man I ended up marrying and his wife from a previous marriage and their children).... I could easily say that their children aren't deserving of all the extras they get financially and otherwise (CS alone is more than I spend on any of the other children every month and the children that are not biologically mine prosper tenfold in part because of what I can afford them) and I'm okay with that. In fact, I promote equality in our home, it is regardless of who birthed who and who the mom or dad of that child is. And yes, I'm in a good spot given my education and income, but that didn't just fall in my lap.

And btw, I am not a fan of individual's inferring that "[I] would feel like [I am] suffering..." (although I probably do that myself some times to others). We aren't "suffering" every time the wind blows the wrong way - this IS life!

Your husband's children were part of the package. His subsequent children after you split are not part of the package. That isn't in your sights because you are happily married. But think about the what if's.....

I commend you for making it on your own so to speak, but not every person has that ability.

I went into the decision to have a child at 32 years old with an existing disabling health issue. I chose to have that child with a gainfully employed person who I was in a committed relationship with. I knew what I was getting into and I took a long time making that decision. This isn't at all what I bargained for when I made that well-thought out decision.

I can't control what he chooses to do post separation. As we so often repeat on this forum - what goes on in his house is of no concern to me, so let's not it be a concern in any arena - whether it be about what a child eats for breakfast or the child support the parent pays.

He's already on wife #3 and, as a man, well within the capabilities of having kids for another 20 years. Just think of the damage he could do if he didn't have to pay a per household CS price.

[arabian]

Serene - your situation is likely different from many single parents who are not re-partnered and who have to make ends meet on their own. Their situation is difficult. Making ends meet is a monthly challenge.

[Serene]

Serene - your situation is likely different from many single parents who are not re-partnered and who have to make ends meet on their own. Their situation is difficult. Making ends meet is a monthly challenge.

This is subjective. You/we can choose to be part of the problem or part of the solution.

I won't lie, it was hard at times. VERY hard. But there is no harm in preserving. I can honestly say that I think had I pursued the CS and all the other bullsh&t he slung my way I would not be in as good a position as I am now. It would have impeded my ability to pursue my education at the rate I did and it would have therefore impeded my career prospects as well.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I merely point individuals to contemplate their self worth and to analyze the immense possibilities that lie ahead of them. To put it simply, there are more ways to achieve a positive outcome than one often acknowledges.... I could sustain my budget through CS or SS but I would have little control over that in the end (payor death, disablity, going missing, loss of job, etc.) or I could just push through it and decide I want to be more in control of my situation for myself and my children.

[HammerDad]

When an intact family contemplates having another child, they make the decision together, based on many factors, one of which is financial. They decide together if having more children and less money for each one is acceptable to them.

While in a perfect world, this would be the case, it is regularly not always true. I know of individuals who have been caught off guard by their spouse becoming pregnant when it wasn't something they had agreed on at the time, and believed that the necessary precautions were in place to avoid pregnancy.

So, even with intact families, there are decisions made to increase the family that are not mutual and ultimately reduce the amount of money to spread to the existing kids.

[Rioe]

While in a perfect world, this would be the case, it is regularly not always true. I know of individuals who have been caught off guard by their spouse becoming pregnant when it wasn't something they had agreed on at the time, and believed that the necessary precautions were in place to avoid pregnancy.

So, even with intact families, there are decisions made to increase the family that are not mutual and ultimately reduce the amount of money to spread to the existing kids.

I know some situations like that too (vasectomies are not 100%!) but because the family is intact, what to do about it and how to cope financially are still mutually made decisions.

I agree... CS obligations from the first children should not be effected because of a new child. I don't think any child is worth less than the other, but if you think of it like any other financial obligation, you need to make smart decisions. If you already have a monthly payment of XX for credit card debt and then go and buy a new car and all the sudden can't afford your credit card debt, do you think the credit card companies are going to give you a break because you bought a new car?

Exactly!

It's along the lines of when one ex chooses to underemploy themself, so their previous income is imputed to them so that the other ex, who had no part of that decision, isn't financially affected. The choice to have further children is like the choice to change to a lesser paying job - it must be done with existing financial obligations continuing to be met.

[HammerDad]

I understand all the arguments against reducing c/s for the first kids. But no one has provided any reasoning for the social argument.

If an individual would be entitled to pay $600 to each of their kids (lets say 2 for easy math), but only has the funds to $800 in total, a small sacrifice of going from $600 to $400 is better than having one at and the other at $200. It is socially more acceptable to have the kids treated equally as the negative impact to first child would be nominal compared the negative impact to the second child if the adjustment is not made. Not adjusting could cause resentment between the half siblings, among other issues.

Allowing for the adjustment also will allow the payor to do what they can for both, while also being able to financially provide for themselves. There are instances where payors, who are unable to financially get by due to large c/s payments, simply either walk away or commit suicide. There is solid argument that something is better than nothing.

And trust me, I am not one to promote having more kids when you can't afford them. IMO, it is reckless and shows poor character. I've argued here that second families shouldn't be a reason to reduce c/s. But multiple c/s payments outside the family does cause me to differ my position slightly when, and when, a hardship claim has merit and in order to provide balance, each child be entitled to the same reduced amount.