Do you think bm should have to account for how cs is spent
Forums:
Why/why not?
Me personally, I don't. When dh saw the SDs being neglected he went through CPS and the courts. The reality is that once that check is handed over to her, and made out in her name, it is her money. Should she spend it on the kids, absolutely. But like I said, it is now her money. Nobody likes being asked how their money is being spent. If I get a check as a gift from someone, they won't be asking me how I spent it. That's never happened.
If the kids are being neglected, go through the legal system and talk to an attorney about your options.
I see your point. I just wish
I see your point. I just wish their was a way to safeguard the CS money so that it is in fact spent on the kids in one way or another. KWIM?
Nothing burns my ass more than seeing BM live like a Rock Star while my BF struggles.
^^^THIS!!! AMEN!!!^^^ RIGHT
^^^THIS!!! AMEN!!!^^^
RIGHT ON AnaR!!!
"If someone in a management
"If someone in a management or government position misuses funds that are within his control, it is against the law and grounds for punishment. There is oversight over how money is used when it is not a salary or gift - when it is FUNDING for a society/court sanctioned purpose. Non-profit organizations provide annual reports. So do corporations. So does the government."
Bm is not a corporation or the government. And she's not employed by the bio dad.
""Nobody likes to be asked how their money is being spent." --> It is not BM funding. It is CHILD funding. BM is just the executor. It should never be considered HER money."
It should be used on the child, but the check is in her name.
>If I get a check as a gift
>If I get a check as a gift from someone, they won't be asking me how I spent it.<
No but depending on the amount, the government might be VERY interested....
I am going to answer this from the recieving end of CS (Not me but my DW who receives it). I only WISH the government would audit us. Neither DW nor I have any qualms showing where the CS is being spent. However, the purpose of the audit would be to ensure that the money is being put to good use AND if the CS is sufficient to meet the child's needs. Should an adjustment be necessary, then the audit can determine that too.
I agree. I would have no
I agree. I would have no problem accounting for the CS I receive from my ex for our son but somehow I know that my BF's ex would have quite an issue explaining how an un/underemployed mother of 5 has all she has and does what she does with what she gets...
Waiting on a response to this
Waiting on a response to this one. LOL
Me too...
Me too...
In the US the CS debt does
In the US the CS debt does not go away and can even be collected from social security payments 50 years later (if they live that long).
She SHOULD be using it on the
She SHOULD be using it on the kids, absolutely. But the check is made out in her name. That's reality. It sucks, but it's the truth.
That "myth" was probably
That "myth" was probably started and perpetuated by bitter, gold digging pos BMs who only care about getting money for themselves anyway. IMHO.
I think "deadbeat dad" was
I think "deadbeat dad" was perpetuated by the "women's lib movement."
Most of these dad's aren't deadbeat. They are "BEAT DEAD!"
^^^WELL SAID
^^^WELL SAID LadyFace...BRAVO!!!^^^
AnaR - the federal government
AnaR - the federal government has a $5 BILLION dollar budgetary line item for child support collection agencies for the 50 states. For every dollar that is collected, and goes through, the Child Support Collection agencies, the federal government "kicks back" roughly .66 cents per dollar that is collected to the state. That money is then put into the states general fund. Or, at least that's where the federal funds go in my state.
And here's the kicker. My DH pays BM through the Child Support Collection Agency. He paid BM $14,400 last year. The way I figure it, our state made about $9,500 off DH.
Pretty sweet deal for the states if you ask me.
"Meanwhile, the NCP can
"Meanwhile, the NCP can struggle with homelessness, joblessness, etc. One medical emergency and he and (Holy shit, if they dare to have a significant other) his household is struggling to keep the lights on, let alone show up in a brand new car, in a brand new hooker outfit to show off her brand new slut tat...."
^^^EXACTLY!!!^^^
Why does the NCP always have to be, or at least seem to be the one that gets "fucked" in this whole CS system!!?? I know that the NCP should pay for their child BUT one parent/household should NOT have it "made" while the NCP and their household suffers!!! That is what my issue is with this CS bullshit.
Agreed .. and how many NCPs
Agreed .. and how many NCPs would look at the "lavish" lifestyle of the CP and say "nope, you don't need my support". Especially in situations where the CP remarries and has a higher household income.
The problem is when it's left to the payer's discretion to pay, they can stop paying for a variety of other reasons unrelated to the child's needs.
That's why there needs to be
That's why there needs to be shared parenting where two fit and loving divorced parents have equal access to their children.
I personally think the CS
I personally think the CS check should go into a government watched bank account that is accessible by both parents and the court system to SEE where the money is spent, but cannot be withdrawn from, and BOTH parents have to contribute either an equal amount or an equal percentage into that account, and both will be liable for jail time and suspended drivers license if they don't pay up, and both the CP and the NCP has to input all of their expenses along with the percentage of time they have with the kids.
The account automatically pays the bills for utilities of the percentage the child uses (so in a 50/50 situation, if mom's house is 2 people when the child is there, it pays half the utility bill there, if dad's is 3 people when the child is there, then it pays 1/2) and a percentage is taken out for college and school fees. If they have CP and NCP where it's like 30/70, then you multiple the 1/3 by .3 or .7 due to the fact that the child doesn't use up all 1/3rd.
Then each is given a debit card that only functions on the days they have the kid and it can only be spent up to the percentage of how much they have the kid of whatever is left of their own contribution. So, hypothetically, if mom and dad of equal income each contribute $600 a month the account for a total of $1200, and combined the utilities for the child/school for the child came out for $500 for both houses, they have a combined leftover of $700 and mom has the kid 70% of the time, then you multiply $700 by .7 which is $450 which is how much the mom can spend up to on the child's clothes and food and toys and stuff.
No extracurriculars or whatever, those come out of pocket if you want them in it so CP's can't sign them up for extras they personally can't pay for and rely on CS for.
You know, maybe I should get someone to write or deal with a program like that because if this can all be automated, it would be so easy!
That's what I mean, it's all
That's what I mean, it's all part of it (utilities), but only up to the child's actual portion.
If the kid is only there 40% of the time, and it is a three person household, and rent is $900 a month, then normally if the kid was there all the time, their share would be $300 a month, but since they are only there 40% of the time, it would be .4 x $300 = $120 that is actually what the kid should be accounted for.
If mom/dad can't afford the remaining rent or mortgage, they should endeavor to find cheaper housing. I mean they could probably cut into their remaining portion if they wanted to, but then the clothes and food would be out of pocket.
I didn't mean that you get a
I didn't mean that you get a discount from the mortgage or the landlord, but that the child technically only uses the property for a certain amount of time, and therefore CS, which is for the child, should probably not go to cover more than it's share of use.
Like a timeshare property. You only pay for the length of time you stay. If you had to pay for the whole year even if you're only there for 10 days, it would probably suck.
Who gets to say how much your
Who gets to say how much your rent should cost you? Who gets to determine how high you get to set your thermostat? What if you don't like that they use a gas furnace when an electric one is cheaper? Who gets to determine how much a pair of shoes should cost? What kind of shampoo you use? What brand milk you buy? Who gets to determine the amount of calories and the type of foods your child eats so that everyones portion is fair? Does it change as the child ages? Does a one year old cost as much in food as a 16 year old? Does their birthday dictate when they get more or less?
You realise that this kind of program is a NANNY STATE. Be careful what you wish you, this is the kind of thing that comes back and bites you on the ass and takes away your freedom as well. If you're ok with the government monitoring your every expenditure and dictating everyone's percentage of it, they will go further.
That's why my hypothetical
That's why my hypothetical situation is designed so that it forces the CP and the NCP to be conscious about what they choose to buy and spend their money on. It's the same with your income--you don't spend money you don't earn (although some people do.)
If you don't have the money, you don't have the money. Those who can't make it without a higher income usually don't go buying houses or renting places they can't afford.
thing change in price all the
thing change in price all the time- If I have a coupon, I can get milk for $1.99 a gallon, without it - it might be over $5 - so do you get to tell me that I can't afford milk or you don't want to pay your portion because I don't have a coupon? Same with gas, electric and water prices - they flux all the time. So you can tell me that it's ok for me to only buy my kids clothing at wal-mart because on your time you can't afford anything better?
That's ridiculousness.
i'm also a programmer by trade and the sheer amount of variables that would be required for this type of situation is astonishingly overhead heavy and slow and cumbersome. Not to mention that mass amount of tax dollars and workers it would take to make it happen. And then we'd all stand in line trying to make heads or tails.
It would be like the Child Support IRS. All on it's own.
I work for my parent's
I work for my parent's computer company as well, and take over when they are traveling. I completely understand that it would be insane to think we can implement something like that. It solves one problem but can create a host of others,
I think you're misunderstanding me, you buy what you want on your time and the other person buys what they want on their time but only up to the percentage of the leftover. So if you could only afford clothes from Walmart, why would you go buy something from Saks 5th ave? The CS is for the kid and if a parent wants to buy them something more than what CS (which is like income) allows, then the person can go out of pocket for it.
I am saying we live based on how much we earn, and if you wish to buy something better then you pay for it instead of using another person's contribution to pay for it.
WOW...you really thought long
WOW...you really thought long and hard about this I see...I like your idea!
I for one would be willing to do it since I am NOT one of those loser BMs that spends the CS on MYSELF!
Eh, I think it's not going to
Eh, I think it's not going to happen without some serious revamping, but it's fairer than the current system anyway. Both are putting in an equal percentage or amount and it can only be used for the kid, for either the mom or the dad.
I only thought of this because that's how DH and I are doing it for our kid. We're putting in an equal amount and using that money solely FOR the child, and it includes its portion of living expenses like utilities and bills. Obviously it's an easier calculation since it's here 100% of the time, so I only need to do the 1/3rd thing.
Food for it and clothing for it and extracurriculars and college fund and school and daycare (which won't be necessary) will be taken out of that account. Anything leftover, if we feel like it, can be used for our other stuff (since I highly doubt a baby is going to cost $1400 a month combined) or tossed into the college fund.
This eliminates any trust issues since we can both access the account.
Honestly, the burden that
Honestly, the burden that would put on the state child support system is enormous. I personally don't want to pay MORE in taxes to fund a program designed to monitor every cent of every child support case in the off chance some selfish BM MIGHT get dragged into court for a slap on the wrist.
I find it hard to believe that enough BMs receiving child support are manipulative and fraudulent enough to warrant something like this.
I know, I'd like to see it
I know, I'd like to see it but I am sure it probably won't happen at all. That's why it's just a nice idea for me, practical in use, but impractical and costly for implementation.
DH and I do it between us since for us, it eliminates another possibility of arguments and fights. We won't resent each other and we both feel like we have control over how our child is raised.
I don't want to more taxes
I don't want to more taxes for this kind of craziness and I certainly wouldn't willingly subject myself to even more intrusion into my privacy.
Equal portion doesn't
Equal portion doesn't necessarily mean half.
That is absolutely true.
That is absolutely true. That's why I think percentage may be better, and if the CP doesn't work, then like the NCP, it should be based on minimum wage earning potential. Forces the CP to get a job if she/he doesn't have one.
I do agree that it's
I do agree that it's ridiculous that courts allow single moms to NOT work and just collect CS with no earning potential factor at all. Every able bodied person should be working to support their children if they're no longer in an agreeable marriage situation.
The question is, why is the
The question is, why is the child costing more than CS?
I have seen people who are dirt poor raise their children to be adults, I have seen people who are insanely rich raise their children. I have seen people who get CS raise their children, and I have seen people who don't get CS raise their children,
You live within your means, so there really shouldn't be such a thing as "the child costs more than CS."
I mean, why does that happen? We are a country addicted to spending and living from paycheck to paycheck, we love credit cards (which is often money we don't have now but will pay back later) and we have a sense of entitlement about money.
Agreed. My parents raised 5
Agreed. My parents raised 5 kids on one salary .. my dad never went to college, so it's not like he was some high-rolling executive either. We lived modestly, saved what we could, and wasted nothing.
It's ridiculous that society dictates what's an acceptable "lifestyle" for a child .. if they're fed, clothed, sheltered, safe, and being educated then they've already got it better than a lot of kids.
This is what I personally
This is what I personally believe as well.
Sorry, I didn't mean to rile everyone up about it. I just thought it was one solution which is being implemented on a small scale (my home), impractical in terms of implementation, and you have people who worry about privacy so it's unlikely something like this would occur.
Just thought it was the fairest compromise for everyone (which means no one is going to be happy 100% with it.)
I guess I'm happy about it because I feel like it's fair, at least in my house.
I think your idea would work
I think your idea would work on a smaller scale .. maybe it could be implemented on a case by case basis in situations where it's necessary. I just don't think it's necessary for everyone in a divorce/child support situation.
And hey, if it works for you then that's what matters
I'd hate to be stuck in line
I'd hate to be stuck in line at the grocery store behind that woman .. }:)
There are all separate
There are all separate accounts. The way this percentage idea works is that the BM or BF can never use CS to cover themselves.
So say Bm gets $2000 from one dad, $1000 from another, and $500 from the last. This means in this hypothetical program, if she has to put $500 in each due to a percent of her income, combined total for the first is $2500, combined total is $1500 for the second, combined total is $1000 for the third.
Each child is with her 70% of the time, and let's say that her rent is $1000 a month. If they were with her 100% of the time, their share each would be $250 (four person household, BM and her 3 children) but since they are only with her 70% of the time, each of their shares is whatever .7 x $250 comes out to be (too lazy to math.) I think it's like $175. This means that $575 of the CS goes to the rent but the $175 each is cut from each account.
That number comes out of the combined amount of each account. If they are with her in different percentages, that changes, but each account cuts a separate check to the rent people automatically.
LOL, Oh good...someone asked
LOL, Oh good...someone asked the question!!
My teenage son EATS more than what I receive in CS for him. I am talking about healthy food, not junk. The one "treat" I purchase him is cheese sticks, 4 packages a month so about $20 from Costco.
Kate
Short of making someone track
Short of making someone track this money in a separate account, how do you ever PROVE exactly which dollars get spent on what?
Can you prove that the CS dollars were spent on getting nails done, hair appointments, cell phone bills, drinks at the bar? If there is ANY other income at all, it's easy enough for someone to say, "No, I spent my paycheck on that other stuff and the CS dollars only paid for rent, food, electricity, etc." Where does it end?
And at the end of the day, if you make the accounting of it too difficult, parents who really need it could become overwhelmed with the reporting/auditing process and either be falsely accused of misusing funds, or give up on pursuing receiving the funds altogether.
This whole train of thought is similar to gun control IMO .. by further regulating and restricting it .. the people you're hurting the most are the ones who follow the rules. If BMs want to be fraudulent/shady, they will find a way.
Don't get me wrong .. it burns my ass knowing that DH has to fork over money for BM when she makes way more than he does, but his kids are his responsbility too.
Sounds good in theory so that
Sounds good in theory so that way one parent (NCP) isnt getting raped in CS and barely getting by...BUT the downside is for us poor SMs who have to be stuck with these spawns even LONGER!!!
Needs are one thing. We all
Needs are one thing.
We all *need* only basic things.
However, most people on this board are from 1st World Countries.
Our "needs" are mostly "wants". And who gets to determine that? Even in an "intact" family they fight about this issue.
They'd have that power and
They'd have that power and more if you made them itemize it.
The things we take for granted in developed countries are overwhelming and powerful and the more people buy into the "gotta haves", the worse it gets.
What court in their right mind would tell people all they had to pay for was basic housing, warmth in the winter (AC is not a necessity in the summer), water and food and BASIC clothing?
The whole economy would collapse!
So, my point is I wish we
So, my point is I wish we could hold her accountable for what she is spending the money on. NO ONE NEEDS CELL PHONES, CABLE, NEW CARS, SALON HAIR or anything of the like. But it will never happen.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Totally agree!
I think that if the
I think that if the government got involved in monitoring how cs is spent it would just be another disaster involving government.
Like I said, if the kids are malnourished or neglected in any other capacity, take pictures and send them to CPS. Document it and show CPS and the courts why dh should have custody, or at least why bm should not, and use your documentation as proof. That's what we did (both of those things).
The idea of another
The idea of another government (state or federal) agency to "help" us quite frankly scares me. I would NOT want it.
I am a BM receiving CS.
My teen son eats more in healthy non-junk food every month than I get for him in CS.
It would be easy to give a detailed analysis of what the CS is used on for the kids. A percentage of rent, utilities (though the two of them use 5x's what I use alone--but we won't go there!), and medical costs is fairly basic to figure out. If we take food and just divide it by 3 then 2/3 of that is from CS.
Now divide that number by 2.
Whoops, we've *already* gone over the CS amount. I've paid 1/2 their lodging, medical, and food and still have all the other costs. Don't even get me started on shoes!! I swear I'm going to tell my daughter to look at her future husband's feet before having children with him! My son keeps growing!! His feet!!! AHHHH!!!! $100 shoes every 3-6 months and don't suggest cheap shoes... they don't MAKE THEM in those sizes and widths cheap. Heaven help me the boy is already 6'4" and is still growing....his inseam is 36" but his waist is only 29".
I don't complain (other than that clothing rant) and only very occasionally ask for help. I couldn't afford to send both kids to XH's family reunion that he wasn't going to attend, so he paid for 1/3's of the costs for the kids to go alone. I pay for the sports and the Y and the gas and everything else.
But it comes back to this:
Why should I even *HAVE* to give those details? If the kids are watered, fed, clothed (sometimes), and are generally happy why should I have to waste my time giving those kinds of details?
Anyway, there is my thoughts....I understand why a lot of you are upset about this topic. I don't think there is an easy solution.
Kate
I agree that we do not need
I agree that we do not need another bureaucratic agency staffed by the usual bottom 10%ers of the employable government minions interfering in our lives.
However, you are great mom and it is not you or people like you that need to be audited.
In our case my DW received CS for my SS from SpermGrandMa and SPermGrandPa for 17+ years.
Their dickhead POS son cried so they paid it for him.
CS never amounted to little more than enough to cover his diaper costs as a young kid or his food costs as an older kid. Even with a nearly 400% increase in CS when the Skid was 11.
I would welcome an audit on how we spent CS. The Department of Agriculture tables estimate the cost of raising a kid to age 18 to be between ~$169,000 and ~$389,000 depending on income bracket. Best case the SpermClan paid less than 30% of the cost to raise the Skid to age 18. In our income bracket which is the worst case for the SpermClan contribution they paid less than 13% of the cost to raise the Skid. Either way DickHead paid ZERO!!!
They started paying CS before SS was 1yo. Over his entire childhood CS amounted to ~$49K paid at increments of $110/mo for ~1.5 years, $133/mo for 9 years and $385/mo for 7 years.
The audit would be a one line item audit. Here is our monthly mortgage. Three of us live here ... Buh bye!
IMHO it depends on what
IMHO it depends on what percentage of the CPs household income that CS is.
If it is a significant percentage then ... YES .... the CP should have to account for the money. I think 35% is a reasonable line to determine if the CP should be audited periodically for how CS money is used. A majority would be a less radical line for requiring an audit of how CS is uses.
if it is a pittance .... NO .... no accounting of CS money should be required.
I also believe that if CS is the majority of the CP's household income then the CP should forfeit custody to the NCP. If a parent can't provide for the majority of their childs support then they have no business with custody ... ceteris paribus.
The difficulty in auditing how CS is spent is that it is impossible to isolate which specific dollar of income is spent on which specific bill or purchase.
In our case my DW recieved $110/mo in CS from the SpermIdiot when SS was age 1-2. From age 2-11 she received $133/mo and from age 11-18 she received $385/mo. There was less than a year bubble when it was $785/mo when DickHead refused service of the summons for the CS modification hearing and ran from the Constable when delivery in person was attempted. The DA requested that my DW provide as much information about the DipShitIots income, employement, taxes, etc, etc, etc... a possible. }:) You do not want to give a CPA the task of researching her voluntarily intermittently employed licensed plumber baby daddy who made her a teen mom.
The court awarded the $785/mo due to DickHeads no show/running from the Constable crap and my DW's research.
My point is this. It is easy for me to have my opinion on the CS audit topic even as the CPStepDad when the CS paid by NCPBioDad never ammounted to more than single digit %ages of our monthly household income.
The SpermClan bitched incessently about how unfair it was that DicKHead had to pay CS for my SS when the younger three also out-of-wedlock SpermIdiot spawn by two more baby mamas were "starving", did not have the nice things that SS had, etc, etc, etc.... That crap did not fly when considered against the fact that SpermGrandMa and SPermGrandPa paid every dime of the CS for my SS for the 17+ years the CO was in force and they raise the three younger SpermIdiot spawn in their home with no help from DickHead while he lives rent free in their rental property.
SS would come home from SpermLand visitation with stories about DickHeads new large screen TV/Game System, etc... in the middle of the SpermClans CS is unfair rants.
Too bad NCPs can't be audited and CS raised due to their stupid financial decisions. Better to confiscate their money for the Skids than to let them waste it.
Of course there far more NCPs who are good parents and get screwed by the system than there are NCPs like my Skids SpermIdiot. Thankfully.
Either way, I have no problem with the idea of putting the thumb screws to idiots on either side of the blended family equation. Audit them both if the indications are that they are morons.
IMHO of course.
There is a problem with this
There is a problem with this logic.....
The CS I used to receive WAS more then my income. Between alimony, CS, and "other" (long story) more than 75% of my household is funded by my XH. That's what happens when you are a military wife and stay home (more then 10 homes in 16 years). Just because we weren't going to be married anymore he still had to support me. I was not gainfully employed. I could get a job making minimum wage, maybe.
BUT.... he didn't want custody of the kids. He doesn't want to raise them. If, heaven forbid, I die before the youngest is 18 they will stay with my mother and he'll pay CS to her. XH is a good dad, but does NOT want to be a full-time father. I will say that I wonder if that will stay the same if he remarries. His current girlfriend (the reason I started posting here) is sweet but makes sure no misunderstandings: she does NOT want full-time children. She thinks my mom keeping the kids would be just fine.
Anyway, I digress. Saying that the person who can afford their children is the one who is best for them is not always true or right.
When I first left with the kids, I was destitute without CS. My income was: 25% alimony, 25% "temp other", and 50% CS. Our kids are 1000x's better off with me and thankfully my XH knows it and supports it.
Kate