How does child support work?

Question

Can somebody please explain to me how child-support works, preferably in the most objective manner possible?

In the gender studies section, there is a constant rant and whine about how child-support is so unfair for men.

I am growing weary of these long gripe sessions, and the subsequent villainizing of woman, calling them "skanks" and "wh0res" and "gold diggers" for collecting child support.

Needless to say, when I hear that point of view, I lose sympathy for these guys, and I wonder what went on in the courtroom, and what kind of husband he was.

There is not a single legal professional who is a GS regular, as far as I know.

As I understand it, when a couple is no longer together, the courts decide what is in the child's best interest.

Is this system, overall, unfair to men, in your opinion? Am I a bad person for saying that the courts are run by legal professionals and the state, and I can't conclude one way or the other if a guy got "screwed" or not?

Please avoid using sexualized or derogatory metaphors. I appreciate your help.

Also, please tell me the country you are referring to.

Answer 1

A lot of people do not want to give money to the "other parent"- but in the US the whole point of child support is both parents contribute according to their earnings to maintain the child's standard of living. Often the man is the one that makes the most money so he contributes more.

Answer 2

Typically, child support is paid by men to women through channeling agencies at the direction of the court. The most common reason that men tend to be the support payers is that women often are at home rearing the children and so are not earning as much as men or are in the workplace and again, not earning as much as men.



It is a rare case indeed where the mother is directed to pay child support, since fully 84 percent of single parent child custody is awarded to the mother in the United States. As a result, you can imagine where the vitriol comes from in the cases of men feeling set upon by the family court system.



'Child support' is a misnomer, however, as the recipient is not required to spend every cent of the support on the child. The money goes to the parent, not the child, and is spent as the parent sees fit. Usually, the money goes to the welfare of the child, but the cases where the support money is spent otherwise is another sore point for men.



Frankly, your comment about: "...In the gender studies section, there is a constant rant and whine about how child-support is so unfair for men. I am growing weary of these long gripe sessions, and the subsequent villainizing of woman, calling them "skanks" and "wh0res" and "gold diggers" for collecting child support..." is a little off-putting. I'd recommend you go find someplace else to play if you don't like the tone of the conversation where you are.



You asked: "...Am I a bad person for saying that the courts are run by legal professionals and the state, and I can't conclude one way or the other if a guy got "screwed" or not?..." I don't know if you're a bad person for that reason or for other reasons. However, I'm guessing you're a child support recipient?



-Stuart

Answer 3

Hmm - plenty of good reason there for complaints and even revolution, if you ask me. I'll add a bit from Australia - and I'll try to be brief.



CS here is worked out on a % basis - form memory 18% for one child, 27% for two, and about 36% for three - and so on - of GROSS INCOME. What this means is simple - man goes to work earns $1000 pw (a bit below average weekly earnings here) - pays about 25% tax = $750 - pays 360 for three kids = $390 left over.



Add to that the following - he no longer owns his own home or is paying a mortgage on a home of his own - he is paying rent to someone else now. $390 a week will hardly cover rent in Sydney, capital city of our most populous state, let alone offer that often wronged man any chance of ever getting back on his feet and possibly owning his own home again, let alone having a social life where he might meet some new lady and possibly recover - or at least get laid.



Add to that the following - in 86% of the cases, it is the woman who seeks and gets divorce - and in 99% of case gets the children as the 'primary caregiver' (whether she works a full time job or not this still applies).



Mother can earn up to (from memory) $38k a year without any effect on CS. My personal experience is that, even when she makes more than that - it is never once considered in any way.



Then - not one thing that Dad contributes - even such things as taking the kids for a holiday etc - is taken into account. As for my self - on one occasion, while living on a disability of $410 a fortnight - I spent $1000 on my kids, providing all transport and so on, so they could have a holiday with me. Work that out as a % of my annual income - you'll be shocked - 9.3%. At the same time - mother was working in the film industry on fabulous money, with free cars and stuff thrown in plus all the tax concessions, yet I was considered a 'deadbeat dad' and was forced to pay a minimum - something which I will never forgive or forget. Anything he's given freely at the time of separation is considered to be not relevant (said he, starting to boil!).



You already know the story of how I set my ex and kids up with the proceeds of my home - totally ignored and thrown on the rubbish heap - and treated with scorn by some jackass second-rate kid public servant. My hands around his neck one day? I will not hold back!



What this is - Annie and everybody else - is simple - it is deliberate disempowerment financially of men in favour of women - the so-called ' bloodless coup' that our politicians have bbeen forcing down our throats now for thirty years and more.



You wonder why men are angry and hostile, and blame feminism for all this? Because this ratbagger came from feminism and their ridiculous demands for rights - and because it dovetails with government's dream of controlling everybody.



When the time comes and the long wall is full of the offenders and the firing squad is ready - and the offenders are begging for mercy and consideration - what mercy should they be given? The same as they gave us? No - no decent man would wish that on anyone!

Answer 4

No, men are not being victimized by the legal obligation of court ordered child support. What many people fail to realize is that both the mother and the father and the custodial and non custodial parent have a legal obligation to contribute to the support of their minor children. Most laws have what is called child support guidelines and all the courts and or attorneys do is plug in the information pertaining to each parent and the computer spits out the amount each party is responsible for.



It works like this. Both parties have an obligation to contribute to the support. The guidelines input the fathers income, the mothers income, other factors such as who pays for medical insurance, who pays for educational requirements such as tutoring et. then they factor in who the child lives with as the domiciliary parent or who the child resides with more often. If the child is in the primary custody of the mother then the support it paid to the mother less the amount the court determines through the guidelines that she , personally is responsible for. Likewise if the child resides primarily with the dad the the mom pays support to the dad for the child minis the amount that the court determines that the dad is responsible for. Before the court makes this determination they determine how much the child is entitled to by both parents based on both parents income and then determines what percentage each owes based upon the factors such as individual income and other payments each contribute to,



For example: Before the court determines how much either mom or dad pay the court first adds the income of both parents together. Lets say dad makes 60,000 per year and mom makes 40,000 (I am using thes figures to give you a very easy and basic example. So based upon parents total income the court determines that based on 100,000 the child is owed (lets just say 2000 per month then the court through the mathematical calculations of the guidelines and who the child is with on how many days per month etc they determine what percentage of 2000 per month the dad pay and what percentage the mom pays. If for example the child lives with mom and they determine dad owes 80% of the 2000 per month and mom owes 20% then dad pays mom 80% of 2000 per month or $1600 per month



Here is a link to a child support calculator so you can try it out yourself, but remember this is for a state that may have different input value than your own



http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/childsupport/louisiana/

Answer 5

I have been married and divorced twice and neither was as acrimonious as the events you describe. The welfare of my daughter from the first marriage was the most important aspect of our relationship which included the divorce. When you, as a couple, agree that neither of the parents are nearly as important as the child a lot of the bickering disappears from the proceedings. Unless the parents are not really placing the child first that is.

Answer 6

You might want to wonder how many children end up with nice sized bank account after say 12 years of payments from the parent sending the money. Accountability for where the money goes would only benefit the children.

Answer 7

You already know how it works- when a family court stipulates that one parent must pay child support, it's to maintain the comfort of the child. Even fathers who rant about their ex-wives don't scream that they want their kids to starve. The child's welfare is not the issue, it's the transfer of money from one unhappy former spouse to the other. Though there are undoubtedly a few women who pay their ex-husbands child support, I'd venture that 99.9% of child support goes from the father to the mother. This makes it easier for men in general to have complaints against women. For every woman who might complain about some scum bag who gets her money, there are ten thousand men with similar gripes.



So it's not about how child support works, but why there is an apparent one-sided gender bias. I think you see why.



That many men resent paying money stems from a multitude of reasons. No one *likes* paying money. When the recipient is someone who has (in your biased perspective) treated you unfairly, it's easy to find suitable gender-related pejoratives.



It's impossible to state whether the family court and legal professionals are "screwing" the husband. You'd have to have similar situations going the other way to state definitively. (Like in race or sexual discrimination studies.) But you also have to remember that no one wins in a divorce. The best anyone can do is to lose less than the other side.



Women earn less than men. Women get custody far more often. Thus the system tries to create a level playing field for the benefit of the child. I have to depart here for a bit- in determining alimony, the family court frequently sees that the woman earns far less, sometimes nothing. So in order to create some sort of equality, the husband usually has to pay alimony as well as child support. Women have nothing to lose by not "playing the system." Their attorneys (and other divorcees) counsel a woman to do as Ivana Trump counseled: "Don't get even; get everything." With some unhappiness in a woman's recent memory, it's not surprising that they play each "pay me" card in court with feminist gusto.



Additionally, courts do not look favorably upon failure to perform. Thus it's frequently the ex-husband who finds himself in legal hot water for non-payment. Through this jaundiced filter, it's understandable if a man resents giving (what seems to him like large) sums of money to a less-than-deserving former wife. Any of the wife's peccadilloes loom large in a man's vision, so he labels her with various unpleasant sobriquets.



My knowldege? I divorced after 35 years in California in 2006. I paid plenty of "spousal support" and "child support." My ex violated the custody agreements freely. I have plenty of gripes, some against her, some against the courts. I still don't know what changed her from the sweet girl I married in 1970 to the avaricious shrew she became in 2006. But that's a separate rant, OK?



PS - In California, there is no alimony. The viggorish one pays to the ex wife is "spousal support," presumably in some twisted PR attempt to ease the pain. Like if IRS didn't want your "taxes," but instead made you pay "revenue enhancement." That, too, is another rant for another venue.

Answer 8

If you are married and living with your spouse and children you pay child support in the form of putting your paycheck in the family pot to pay for food, clothing and shelter. If you and the spouse split up and the children don't live with you the same rule applies except you aren't part of the household.

Answer 9

baby help and custody are 2 diverse themes. the two might desire to be court ordered. on account that your father replaced into court ordered to pay baby help on your mom, that's what he's doing. on account which you mom replaced into granted custody of you with the aid of yet another court order, you reside together with her. in case you choose for to stay together with your father, and your mom isn't keen to allow you to gain this, he might prefer to flow returned to court and petition that the unique ruling giving your mom custody be overturned. to be certain that that to prevail, he might might desire to instruct that residing together with your mom is attainable on your existence and secure practices. So no, you asserting you do in contrast to your mom (as all little ones your age do faster or later) won't make a choose overrule an present custody order.

Answer 10

My dear I am the single parent of an autistic child. He suffers from this because of intrauterine retardation syndrome. His mother is an addict. Family Services told me that as long as she was seeking help, ie. on the methadone programme, she was considered "disabled" (addiction being a disease) and refused to intervene as long as the child was healthy. However I stayed at home, quit my career as a teacher, to work nights so I could look after my son during the day to make sure he was healthy. I was informed by a lawyer that if I tried to take my son I would be charged with kidnapping. So I stayed with a heroin addict for four years, sheltering my son and caring for him- even taking him with me to sleep while I worked. She phoned the police on me if I didn't pay her money, saying that she would say I threatened her and my son with violence. One day I had no more money, she took my son. I phoned the police and Family Services. The police said there wasn't much they could do- she was the mother and legal guardian afterall, Family Services told me to call the police as soon as she showed up- which she did two days later. She realized she had crossed a line- my son was four- but threatened to run off if I phoned the police. Family Services came next day and took my son- not just from his mother, but from me as well- for showing poor judgement in not calling the authorities- even after the Police told me I had done the right thing because they couldn't have stopped her. For a year Family Services made me jump through every hoop, put me through every test, tried everything to test my patience to see if I had anger issues. I did everything; including pointing out that nobody would be in this position if Family Services had listened to my concerns since my son came home after detox. I lost my career as a teacher and made to feel like I was some junkie who neglected his son (I never have touched the stuff, probably why I was so naïve, plus I had just returned from working overseas from a very orthodox Muslim country). I was awarded full custody, but no child support. During this time my son's maternal grandfather passed away. He left money to his grandson, but at the time his mother was still guardian, even though he was in foster care. The money was spent, and legally, there's nothing to be done- she was still guardian afterall. Now I have full custody, there is no visitation- because of the nature of her "illness" as long as she gives "reasonable notice" I can not deny her.

There was no child support awarded- none. I know that even people on the dole here have their cheques garnished as at least a symbolic gesture- even if it is only $20. Or their tax credit. Not me, and I'm the only one I have heard of this here. People don't believe me until I pull out the Final Custody papers.

I don't know about other men or women. But I was told by two different workers who would, of course, deny saying it, but they told me if EVERYTHING else was EXACTLY the same, but just switch genders, not only would NONE of it had happened, but I would have had support from day one, kept my house, my job and gotten the help my son needed; his mother refused to acknowledge his ASD as she believed it would be an admission that her drug use could have (more than likely) caused it. Maybe those workers were right about genders being treated differently, I do know women from the programmes I was forced to attend and none of them seemed to experience the difficulties I did. But without another male that experienced the same thing I did I can't honestly say it was because of my sex.