You are here

Brilliant move by NCP

Rags's picture

Watched a Reel this AM on CS.  No CO.  There is a direct agreement between CP and NCP the   NCP will pay $450/mo in CS for a 13yo daughter.

NCP gets a debit card in 13yo's name and deposits the CS to that card.  CP calls to complain that the CS was not paid.  NCP sends snip of deposit to the debit card.

CP gets angry. NCP explains the CS is for the DD and only the DD.  CS is not for the CP's several other kids, or the CPs "do", "nails", etc.

No doubt court and a CO will follow shortly.

NCP is brilliant.  Can track what is spent, where it is spent, and when it is spent.  Can prove payment of CS. 

No doubt some idiot Judge will screw it up, rule that it is a gift and not CS, nail the NCP for arrears, and the CP will not spend it wisely.  Though obviously neither will a 13yo.

I laughed when I watched the reel.




notarelative's picture

Not so brilliant move IMO. Handing $450 a month to a 13 year old is a recipe for disaster. CS is not for the kid to spend on herself. BM is justifiably headed off to court. I have no doubt that the judge will not approve of the dad's method of paying support. 

Rags's picture

No doubt it will come back to bite BioDad in the ass. But... I like his innovative application of the  message to  his X that  her brood barn full of other people's children are not his problem.

Many STalkers deal with a similar issue with their mate paying CS to a breeding for dollars X.  There is no real way to hold a CP accountable for responsible use of CS.

I do applaud this NCP for taking a stand. It will ultimately be suboptimizing to his goals. But, he played an innovative "card" in the poker hand.  Only 5 more years to deal with this, most likely anyway.



ESMOD's picture

The reality is that 450 dollars is not a gold mine.. and probably is a pretty realistic amount of money that is spent on raising that child at mom's house.. it certainly would be covering food, housing, transportation and incidentals at just over 100/week.. that's not like she is just raking it in.

And.. the CS can technically be spent the way mom wants to spend it.. just because she gets her nails done.. or has other kids.. doesn't mean that she is spending well more than that amount of child support to make her household run... and perhaps the child support does allow her to have money to get her nails done.. because she has spent her full amount of budget funds on housing, utilities and groceries... to support the full home.. including the child ... so when she gets that CS.. that may look like discretionary.. but it isn't 

Because.. let's say that there is a mom and three kids in the home (to be simple... ).. She brings home 1600/month... and it costs her 1800/month to support herself and three kids.  (including the cs child who we will assume for the sake of simplicity lives with mom basically FT).    That is 450/person.. what it costs to support the 4 people... so when her Child Support is paid.. she now brings home 2050... which means that she now has 250 more than her basic cost of living..   So, is that discretionary 250 coming out of the 450? or is it coming out of the 1600 that she brings in?  

I would argue that it's not an obligation that the CP spend 100% of their own money on fully supporting themselves and the child before the first dollar of CS is used.. and that they not be able to use any of their own funds in a discretionary way (or the CS if it comes after they have already spent "their" money on the child.. and basically the CS is replacing their discretionary budget.

I also agree... he will likely get burned on this.. he just gifted his child that money.. that is not child support.


Dollbabies's picture

In my state, the stated purpose of CS is a shared responsibility for the child's basic needs, which includes medical expenses, education (which includes extracurriculars) and childcare. That's what the non-custodial parent is paying for. It's not a supplement to the custodial parent's household budget. If CS gives the custodial parent a surplus, okay. How the parent uses the surplus is up to him or her.

I realize there are horror stories where CS is abused by the other parent and stupidly supported by the courts. But that doesn't change the premise of CS which is shared responsibility by both parents of the child they created. 

Rags's picture

Kids should have support from both of their BPs. There should be no doubt about that.

I have always found it interesting that there is not consistency in requirements on both sides of the blended family equation to provide accounting of income when CS is established nor is there any requirement for the CP to provide an accounting of how CS is spent.

For us, DW was the CP, and we had to provide ad nauseum detail on our income, assets, housing costs, etc, etc, etc...  The NCP was demanded to provide the same, never did, with zero consequences.  We pushed repeatedly for the court to nail their asses to the wall to provide the same, nope. The court got irritated with us for the court shoving their head up their own ass.  The Judge's head went farther up their own ass the harder we pushed for the opposition to be held to the same demands that we were held to.


Part of the CS drama is that many CPs think their X is to provide the full money to support the Skid at the CP's home. That is not how it works. The NCP has a duty to supplement the CPs cost for the additional time the CP has the kid above the time the the NCP has the kid.  The CP is responsible in part for supporting the kid when the kid is with the CP. IMHO the NCP should demand and should receive a full accounting of how their money is spent when the kid is with the CP.

Since the CP provides zero support when the kid is with the NCP,  what is spent in the NCPs home is none of the CP's business.

Sadly, the bottom 10%er dipshitiots of the legal profession on the family law bench avoid this logic like the plague.

Though I am the mate of the CP in our blended family adventure, this has always baffled me.

ESMOD's picture

I understand that both the parents should be providing for their children.. but I can see how it is complex in many ways.

First.. there is disparity of income.. and I understand that the courts to an extent try to levelize the support by having the higher earning parent pay a larger percentage.

there is also the matter of amount of time that one parent may have vs the other.. obviously when you have majority custody.. it's not just the cost of supporting that child. technically.. you are putting more "hours" than the other parent.. as well.

In my example.. I tried to make it super simplistic.. a CP who had 100% custody basically  so I wasn't factoring in that the CP would also be assumed to have a portion of their income allocated to that child.. though it IS in the equations generally.. 

I was just pointing out that the fact that CS does end up offsetting some of the money that the parent is spending on the child.. it can end up (depending on their earning).. putting them in a positive situaation.. but that doesn't mean that it isn't a legit amount to have that other parent pay.  CP pays the first 100% of their own money first... then the NCP pays CS.. that covers a gap in budget.. and enables them to have discretionary income (it's not like the NCP is necessarily being asked to 100% not spend a dime on anything other than "necessaries" either).

In your case.. you provided the information requested by the courts.. that was the right thing to do.. unfortunately.. there often are few consequences for the parties in these matters that don't... and in your case.. I imagine that there was not a whole lot of blood from that turnip to get anyway. .. 

Courts are supposed to get as much relevant info as possible.. but CS is often calculated on a basis that may or may not cover the actual costs.. it might be MORE.. it might be LESS than the actual cost that is spent on them.  Courts can't get but so weighed down in the minutae of well.. I'm driving a Cadillac vs a toyota.. I'm living in a big house or town house.. etc.. so they just have their calculators that are a base attempt to set a "reasonable" CS for the child and then it's often allocated based on custody time.

Yes.. men still seem to get the short end on custody.. and with differences in earnings.. often get the long end of paying CS too.. but I do think that has started to become a more level playing field.. but there is a ways to go.