OT-"Being PUT ON CHILDSUPPORT"-
Forums:
Lets face it there are many issues in ST life other than someone's use of words. BUT, I can not take it anymore.
I keep reading and hearing women say "I'm gonna PUT him ON child support' or he is mad because I PUT HIM ON child support.
Well my eyes will pop out of my head if I see it one more time 
OK vent over.
I've never heard that nor do
I've never heard that nor do I know what it means. Does it mean to collect thru the state? to obtain an order for CS to be paid? To go after arrears?
Both parents have an obligation to support a child they created - no matter who has custody.
I am guessing it means having
I am guessing it means having a child support order signed by a Judge OR child support agency.
The age group is rather young teens and 20's who use it in those terms.
Drives me batty.
I'll comment on your last sentence, albeit true, most orders are lopsided. OR one doesn't pay at all.
JMO of course.
I hate that "lopsided" stuff.
I hate that "lopsided" stuff. Sometimes it's when the bio father skips out and leave the mom to carry the burden alone. Or sometimes it's when a judge still thinks it's 1950 and the father needs to pay for everything. Both are just wrong.
It's the firm college
It's the firm college students have to fill out to get financial aid..
I agree notasm3, I agree. Now
I agree notasm3, I agree.
Now if you don't pay your support I hear you can not register your car????? Should be the same for parent interference with visitation OR at least get a 100 citation. Something.
Heavenlike---I don't know, but I do know it is not proper to say "PUT him ON child support"
Correct might be Dad/Mom must pay child support? Jane was ordered to pay support, ??
I guess I am being picky. Gosh I do not want to appear to "PUT ON AIRS"
I for one believe that each
I for one believe that each child should have equity access to the resources of both bioparents. The difficulty arrises when the NCP gets bent out of shape regarding having zero control over how the money they provide is utilized.
Even as the CSP in our blended family equation I can see how the NCP would take issue with pumping seemingly incessant resources into a black hole with no say or feedback regarding how it is used.
I would be a proponant of the CP having to submit expense reports with receipts to the CSE office on a periodic basis to receive reimbursement for verifiable kid related expenses. I also believe that housing should not be a part of that. The CP has to have a place to live and should be responsible for providing housing/utilities for themselves with no part of CS going to benefit the CP.
For this reason I am also a proponant of the most financially capable parent receiving preference when custody is set. The best solution is 50/50 with no CS involved. Each parent provides for the children when the children are with that parent and the children benefit from each parents resources when with that parent.
The term I prefer.... "Nail their ass to the wall for CS". Of course that only applies if they are not providing a reasonable amount of support. If they are acting and contributing reasonably.... then "Delivering on their CS obligation" is the term that I will go with.
My wife had full physical and
My wife had full physical and legal custody. The NCP had 7wks of visitation per year.
Though in our case we held all of the power I personally believe that the system is stacked way too heavily against the NCP and that the CP gets way too much leaway in the run of the mill (if there is such a thing) Custody/Visitation/Support sitaution.
In our case for 9 years the CS was a pittance and even when raised by ~300% for the last 7 years it was not enough to be material for our household income. For a licensed plumber (BioDad) it should not have been prohibitive for him to pay it. Though the squalling that came from SpermLand for the 17 years that a CO was in place gave the impression that $110/mo - $133/mo - $385/mo was inducing starvation and deprivation on their end. When considered that the BioDad never paid a penny of his CS obligation and the SpermGrandParents paid it all for him, paid his CS obligation for spawn #2 as well, and raised the two youngest spawn in their home with no help from BioDad our situation is far from run of the mill.
I recognize that NCPs get screwed by the system. Some justly, but most are victims of a crappy system.
I have to agree Rags. CS
I have to agree Rags. CS should be claimed on submitted expenses. But some other issues arise with that as well.
Example? DH has insurance..covers $200 towards glasses only. BM has insurance covers the exam plus $150 towards glasses. So the last time SD15 had to get her eyes check and new glasses...the bill was 150 over the insurance amount...due to designer frames.
So to add onto what you said..expenses should have to be reasonable. $500 for glasses is not. Nor an Iphone 6 with a full data package, or 10 pairs of jeans to start school, or a $70 backpack.
I agree. This is why the
I agree. This is why the current CS system is in place. Administrating the expense submittal model would be hell.
CS covers everything not otherwise stipulated in the CO. An NCP's head probably explodes every time the phone rings for more money from the X. Were I an NCP I think my on message answer would be "I pay CS. I have already participated in that expense. CS covers everything I am responsible for. You need to learn to manage your finances better there CP."
Unfortunately it is extremely unlikely that the States will ever go to an expense based CS model.
This happens to us. The
This happens to us. The nickling and dimng for "extra" expenses never seems to end...and we can't figure out what's covered by CS and what's "extra" in BM's mind...
Reasonable adult parents
Reasonable adult parents behaving reasonably... a miracle!!!!
Your kids are lucky to have both you and XH in their lives. Too bad more kids do not have such a strong example of a mom and a dad.
No...she's saying that the
No...she's saying that the NCP gets to take child support as a deduction at the end of the year since it is money that went out of his/her household to support kids.
I think, at the very least, the IRS should automatically split the child tax deduction (each parent gets same # of kids each year if there's an even number, switch of every other year if not). It makes absolutely ZERO sense that my DH's ex gets tax-free $$$ every month for three kids, gets a lot of extra support from us, sends the kids to us to stay frequently even though she technically has primary custody, and still gets to claim all three kids every year on taxes...plus earned income and head of household since she hasn't remarried. It's truly insane. Meanwhile, we get completely screwed in every way.
If they were still together
If they were still together they could file jointly and take advantage of the tax savings, if any.
They can't in this case, so the NCP ends up getting screwed.
At that income level the
At that income level the marriage penalty kills you in taxes. Being married has negative impact regarding taxes the higher up the income ladder you progress.
Okay, I'm from Canada and we
Okay, I'm from Canada and we don't file jointly, so I assumed filing jointly would be a benefit it one wage earner made more than the other.
The point is still, if they were in an intact family, they would share in any additional savings or additional taxes.
This way, only the CP gets the pleasure of receiving extra money without paying the taxes on it.
To my understanding, the
To my understanding, the state government will go after the NCP for "some" discretionary dollar amount if the minor children are on public assistance.
BM put DH's kids on public assistance. The state came after DH to get reimbursement, even though DH was paying BM more than legally required CS as per the horrible divorce decree his "brilliant" attorney help compose.
Thank goodness DH is done paying BM support. He sent his last BM support check in June of this year!!
They used to do that here in
They used to do that here in Canada, but some CPs got their panties in a twist, and the law was changed many years ago.
I agree with you. Just because it's considered child support doesn't mean the CPs have no discretion on how it is spent. It is additional money flowing into their household.
If we're talking about
If we're talking about things/words that bug us, it grates on my nerves when people ask for "advise" instead of "advice".
It makes sense to me that the
It makes sense to me that the NCP should receive a tax exemption (reduction in AGI) for CS paid and the CP pays the taxes on CS as normal income.
Not the way it works though.
There are two issues at
There are two issues at play.
1. who gets to claim the kid's exemption on their taxes. (and also further benefits that might come from head of household designation, EIC etc...)
2. How should CS be treated for the payer and payee.
Theoretically, the NCP pays child support, but the CP is generally also kicking in and paying a share themselves. For this reason, I think the tax burden relates to EARNINGS vs who is getting to spend the money. Saying "I didn't get to spend it" is actually not 100% correct since the person paying CS is paying money to support their child. This is no different than the situation where the parent actually lived in the home with the EX as an intact family. The earner pays taxes on their earnings.
Where things get sticky are who gets the related exemptions. I would generally say the person who is paying the majority of the cost of supporting the child should be able to use the exemption on their return. My DH was supposed to get to claim one child per their CO, but his EX always claimed them both. It was just easier (and cheaper) to just let it roll and not worry about it.